.^vw*''i 


^l  \U  Wmb^icnj  ^ 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


'''< 


% 


Shelf. 


BV    800    .A8 

Armstrong,  George  D.  1813- 

1899. 
The  sacraments  of  the  New 

Testament 


THE 


SSCRSMENTS 


NEW  TESTAMENT 


INSTITUTED   BY  CHRIST. 


GEORGE  D;  ARMSTRONG,  D.  D,, 

PASTOR   OF   THE    1  IKST    PRESBYTEEIAJJ    ilIUBCH    OK    NORFOI-K,    VA. 


NEW    YORK: 

A.   C.   ARMSTRONG    &    SON, 

714  Broadway. 

1880. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1880,  by 

A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON, 
the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


PREFACE. 


In  the  following  treatise  on  the  Sacraments  of  the  New  Testament, 
tlw  author's  aim  has  been  to  give  a  discussion  of  the  subject: — 

First. — Thoroughly  Scriptural. — Ever)'  passage  of  Scripture  which 
can  properly  claim  attention  in  a  full  and  fair  examination  of  the  sub- 
ject is  considered,  and  a  correct  exposition  of  it  attempted.  The  "Word 
of  God,  and  that  alone,  can  bind  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  this  matter, 
and  to  the  "Word  of  God,  and  to  that  alone,  is  our  appeal  made.  The 
Sacraments  as  instituted  by  Christ,  were  corrupted  at  a  very  early  date, 
(see  1  Cor.  xi.  17-34)  and  hence,  what  is  called  "primitive  practice," 
and  the  authority,  even  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  is  of  little  worth 
in  settling  questions  respecting  their  form  and  nature. 

Second. — Adapted  to  thei^resent  state  of  the  controversies  in  the  Church. 
— Where  controversy  is  long  continued : — and  the  controversy  between 
Fiomanists  and  Protestants  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper  dates  back  to 
the  very  beginning  of  "the  Reformation";  and  that  between  Baptists 
and  Pedobaptists,  respecting  the  proper  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism, 
to  a  time  not  much  later, — it  always  happens,  that  new  grounds  of 
defence  are  occupied,  and  new  arguments  of  assault  are  introduced  from 
time  to  time;  and  hence  it  comes  that  the  discussion  which  was 
thorough  and  exhaustive  a  century  ago,  does  not  meet  the  necessities  of 
to-day.  In  the  following  treatise,  the  author  has  aimed  to  deal  with 
the  several  doctrines  discussed,  as  they  are  presented  and  defended  by 
their  leading  advocates  of  to-day. 

Third. — Popular,  i.e.,  adapted  to  the  comprehension  of  the  average 
English  reader.     The  matters  discussed  are  of  interest  to  all  Christian 


iv  Frcface. 

people ;  and  in  our  day  and  country,  Home,  changing  her  tactics,  is 
appealing  to  the  people,  through  popular  treatises  in  defence  of  her 
doctrine  of  salvation  through  the  Hacraments.  For  this  reason,  a  popu- 
lar treatise  on  the  sacraments,  setting  forth  and  defending  what  Protes- 
tants regard  as  scriptural  views  of  their  nature,  seems  to  be  called  for. 

The  present  work  was  commenced  more  than  twi^nty  years  ago;  and 
a  portion  of  the  treatise  on  Baptism  was  then  wi'itten  out  and  published 
under  the  title  of  "The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms."  This  part  has  been 
c-arefully  revised,  and  the  whole  work,  a-s  originally  designed,  completed  : 
and  is  now  given  to  the  public,  with  the  hope  that  it  may  prove  of  ser- 
vice, especially  to  young  ministers,  and  Sabbath-school  teachers,  in 
helping  them  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  tba 
Sacraments 


THE 


DOCTRINE   OF   BAPTISMS." 


CONTENTS. 


PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT. 

Question  respecting  the  Mode  of  Baptism— Queatibn  respecting  the  Subjects  of 
Baptism— Translation  Question— Baptismal  Regeneration xi 


f  nrt  fuBl 

TRANSLATION    QUESTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

gl.  Statement  of  the  Question,  g  2.  Limitation  to  Bap^izo- Reasons  for  this.  g3. 
Limitation  to  Baptizo  used  as  a  religious  Term— Reasons  for  this— History  of 
the  Hellenistic  Greek,    g  4.  Radical  Fallacy  in  the  Baptist  Argument 1 

CHAPTER  II. 

g  5.  Jno.  iii.  25,  26.  Katharizo  (to  purify,)  used  as  a  synonym  for  baptizo.  g  6.  Jno. 
i.  19-25.  Confirmation  of  this  sense  of  baptizo.  g7.  Significance  of  John's  si- 
lence respecting  the  nature  of  baptism 13 

CHAPTER   III. 

Mosaic  Laws  of  Purification. 

§8.  Rites  of  personal  Purification.    g9.  Rites  of  Purification  for  inanimate  Thiners. 

glO.    Purification  by  bathing  and  washing,     g  11.  EflTects  of  Purification.     gl2. 

Definition  of  the  Term  purifu  (knthnrizo).    g  13.  Definition  of  the  Term  baptize 

{baptizo),  as  used  in  the  Word  of  God 20 

CHAPTER   IV. 

Use  of  Baptizo  in  the  Sepluagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament. 

214.  2  Kings  V.  14.    gl5.  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  25.    g  16.  Judith  xii.  7.    §  17.  Isai.ih 

xxi    4 28 

vu 


viii  Contents. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Use  of  Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  Mosaic  Purifications. 

J 18.  Mark  7ii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38.    g  19.  Hebrews  ix.  10.    g  20,  Hebrews  vi.  2....    37 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Figurative  A2:>plications  of  the  word  Baptizo. 

g  21.  Christ's  Baptism  in  his  Death,  Matt.  xx.  20-23 ;  Mark  x.  38,  39 ;  and  Luke  xii. 
50.  g  22.  Baptism  "  unto  Moses,"  1  Cor.  x.  2.  g  23.  Baptism  in  the  Ark,  1  Pet.  iii. 
21 45 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  ivith  Fire. 

1 24.  Matt.  iii.  11 ;  Mark  i.  8  ;  Luke  iii.  IG ;  John  i.  26,  33 ;  Acts  i.  4-8, 22 ;  ii.  1-4,  IS- 
IS, 32,  33 ;  X.  44-48  ;  xi.  15,  16 56 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Use  of  Baptizo  in  a  Spiritual  Sense. 

§25.  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  g26.  Gal.  ill.  27.  §27.  Eph.  iv.  5.  §28.  Origin  of  the  Doctrine 
of  Baptismal  Regeneration 64 

CHAPTER  IX. 

All  Water  Baptisms  in  their  Nature  Purifications. 

g  29.  "  The  Baptism  of  Repentance."  Matt.  iii.  7,  8, 11 ;  Mark  i.  4 ;  Luke  iii.  7,  8, 
12;  Luke  vii.  29,  30;  Matt.  xxi.  25;  Mark  xi.  30;  Acts  i.  22;  Acts  xiii.  21;  Acts  x. 
37;  Acts  xix.  1-7;  Acts  xviii.  24-26.  g30.  Christ's  Baptism  by  John.  Matt.  iii. 
14-17 ;  Mark  i.  9-11 ;  Luke  iii.  21,  22 ;  John  i.  32,  32.  g  31.  Christian  Baptism. 
Acts  ii.  41 ;  Acts  viii.  12-16 ;  Acts  xviii.  8 69 

Summing  up— Conclusion 77 


THE   MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

§32.  Statement  of  the  Question— ?  33.  Arguments  relied  on  to  prove  that  Immer- 
sion  is  essential  to  valid  Baptism 83 


Contents.  ix 

CHAPTER  II. 

Symbolic  Import  of  Baptism. 

g34.  Rom.  Ti.  3,  4;  Col.  ii.  12.  §35.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  §36.  Col.  ii.  12.  237.  1  Cor.  X7. 
29 86 

CHAPTER  III. 

J38.  John's  Baptisms  in  Jordan.  Matt.  iii.  1-6;  Mark  i.  4-10;  Luke  iii.  3,  21.  John 
i.  28,  I.  40.  §39.  John's  Baptisms  at  ^non.  John  iii.  23.  §40.  The  Baptism  of 
the  Eunuch.    Acts  viii.  36-39 101 

CHAPTER  IV. 

J41.  The  Baptism  of  the  three  thousand  in  Jerusalem.  Acts  ii.38, 41.  §42.  Paul's 
Baptism,  Acts  ix.  17, 18;  xiii.  12-16.  §43.  The  Baptism  of  Cornelius,  Acts  x.  44- 
48.    §44.  The  Baptism  of  the  Jailer  at  Philippi,  Acts  xtL  32-34 113 

Summing  up— Conclusion 119 

SUPPLEMENTARY   NOTE. 
The  Practice  of  Immersion  in  Early  Times 124 


%hxi   (l^iiirh. 


TEE  SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER  I. 

g45.  Statement  of  the  Question,  and  of  the  Arguments  relied  on  by  Baptists  and 
Pedo-Baptists „ 131 

CHAPTER  II. 

{4€.  Christ's  commission  to  his  Church,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20;  Mark  xvi.  15, 16; 
Luke  xxiv.  47-49 ., 133 

CHAPTER   III. 

?4T.  Is  the  import  of  Baptism  inconsistent  with  its  administration  to  Infants? 
Acts  xxii.  16,  and  Deut.  xxx.  6.  Gal.  iii.  27,  and  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  1  Cor.  xii.13,  and 
Rom.  iv.  11.    Col.  ii.  12,  and  Col.  ii.  11 138 

CHAPTER  IV. 

248.  Essential  Character  of  the  visible  Church.  §49.  Nature  of  Church  Member- 
•hip in 


X  Contents. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Relation  of  the  Church  under  the  New  to  that  under  the  Old  Testament 

Dispensation. 

.  2  50.  The  Charter  of  the  Church  unchanged,    g  51.   Scriptural   Representations. 

g52.  The  first  Christian  Church  but  the  Old  Testament  Church  purged  of  tlie 

Apostasy , 148 

CHAPTER  VI. 

§53.  Christ's  Recognition  of  Infant  Membership  in  the  Church.    Matt.  xix.  13-15. 

Mark  X.  13-16.    Luke  xviii.  15-17.    ?  54.  Christ's  re-commission  of  Peter.    John 

xxi.  15.    §55.  Peter's  preaching  of  Christian  Baptism.    Acts  ii.  38,  39  and  iii.  24- 

26.    §56.  Significant  Silence  of  the  Jews _ 158 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Infant  Membership  Recognized  hy  giving  to  Children  the  peculiar  Titles 

Belonging  to  Church  Members. 

§57.    Names  given  to  Church  Members  in  Scripture.     §58.    Eph.  i.  1,  and  vi.  1-3  ; 
Col.  i.  1,  2,  and  iii.  20.    §  59.  Titus  i.  6.    ?  60.  1  Cor.  vii.  12-U 169 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
§  61.  Family  Baptisms.    Acts  xvi.  14, 15,  and  32-34 ;  1  Cor.  i.  13-17 180 

Summing  up — Conclusion 184 


furl  /nnrtti. 

BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION. 

CHAPTER   I. 

Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  Romish  Baptism. 

§62.  Romish  Baptism,  its  Rites  and  Ceremonies 191 

CHAPTER  II. 

Baptismal  Regeneration  Tested  by  Scripture. 

g63.  Baptismal  Regeneration  defined.    §64.  John  iii  3-7.    §  65.  Eph.  v.  25-27.    §66. 

Titus  iii.  5,  6.    §  67.  Acts  xxii.  16.    §  68.  Acts  ii.  37,  38.    §  69.  Rom.  v.  12-14 198 

CHAPTER  III. 

Sacramental  Grace. 

§ 70.  Grace  conferred  " ex  opere  operate."    §71.  Infant  Salvation.    §72.  Baptismal 

Regeneration  Contradicted  by  Experience  and  Observation.     §73.    "Another 

Gospel." 220 


PRELIMINARY   STATEMENT, 


The  Christian  world  lias  long  been  divided  in  sentiment, 
on  the  question —  What  constitutes  a  valid  Christian  bap- 
tism ?  All  agree,  that  in  Christian  baptism,  there  must 
be  an  application  of  water  to  the  person  of  the  baptized ; 
and  that  this  application  must  be  made  "in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
difference  is — 

First.  Respecting  the  mode  in  which  this  water  is  to  be 
applied;  some  contending  that  in  order  to  valid  baptism, 
the  subject  must  be  immersed;  others,  while  admitting 
the  validity  of  baptism  by  immersion,  hold,  that  the  ap- 
plication of  water  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  constitutes  a 
baptism  equally  valid; — and  that  to  require  immersion,  in 
order  to  admission  to  the  Church  of  God,  is  to  infringe 
upon  that  Christian  "liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made 
his  people  free;"  and  to  "teach  for  doctrine,  the  com- 
mandments of  men."  This  is  the  difference  between  the 
Baptist,  and,,  what  may  be  called  the  Non-Baptist  churches. 

Second.  Respecting  the  proper  subjects  of  bajjtism; 
some  contending  that  none  but  such  as  make  a  credible 
profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism;  others,  holding  that,  "not  only  those  that  do 
actually  profess  faith  in,  and  obedience  unto  Christ,  but 

xi 


xii  Preliminary  Statement. 

also  the  infants  of  one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to  be 
baptized  "  (Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  Ch.  xxviii., 
Art.  4).  This  is  the  difference  between  the  Baptist,  and 
that  large  portion  of  the  Pedo-Baptist  churches,  to  which 
the  Presbyterian  church  belongs. 

A  controversy,  on  these  two  points,  has  long  existed  in 
the  Christian  Church.  In  support  of  their  doctrine,  that 
immersion  is  essential  to  a  valid  Christian  baptism.  Bap- 
tist writers  affirm,  that  the  word  baptizo  (the  word  in  the 
original  Greek  corresponding  to  baptize  in  our  English 
version)  "has  but  one  signification — it  always  signifies  to 
cZip,  never  expressing  anything  but  mode;"  and  hence, 
they  argued,  that  to  speak  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring,  is  to  be  guilty  of  a  contradiction  in  terms,  just 
such  as  there  would  be  in  speaking  of  dipping,  by  sprink- 
ling or  pouring.  Thus,  does  the  question  respecting  the 
proper  translation  of  baptizo  enter  as  an  element,  and  a 
most  important  element,  too,  into  the  decision  of  the  ques- 
tion respecting  the  mode  of  baptism. 

On  such  a  version  as  our  commonly  received  English 
version,  in  which  the  Greek  baptizo  has  been  simply  An- 
glicized and  transferred,  persons  differing  in  opinion  re- 
specting the  meaning  of  the  word,  may  unite,  without  any 
compromise  of  principle ;  and  had  not  the  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary work,  in  its  progress,  called  for  versions  of  the 
Bible  in  heathen  tongues,  the  probability  is,  that  no  breach 
in  the  Church  of  God  would  ever  have  arisen  from  the 
"translation  question."  A  breach,  however,  has  been 
created  by  this  question ;  and  the  Baptist  church,  in  our 
country,  has  withdrawn  itself  from  the  "  Bible  operations," 
in  which  all  other  Protestants  are  united,  and  formed  the 
"American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,"  for  the  express 
purpose  of  translating  the  word  baptizo,  by  words  corres- 


Preliminary  Statement.  xiii 

ponding  to  our  word  immerse,  in  all  new  versions  of  the 
Bible  required  for  heathen  lands. 

As  a  natural  consequence  of  the  formation  of  this  Bible 
society,  and  more  especially  of  the  spirit  in  which  they 
have  pursued  their  work,  we  have,  within  the  last  few 
years,  the  formation  of  the  "Bible  Union,"  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  us  a  new  English  version  of  the  Word  of.  God, 
in  which,  among  other  changes,  the  words  immerse  and 
immersion,  shall  be  substituted  for  baptize  and  baptism. 
The  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  at  its  anniver- 
sary, held  x\pril  28th,  1840:  ''Resolved,  That  by  the  fact, 
that  the  nations  of  the  earth  must  now  look  to  the  Bap- 
tist denomination  alone,  for  faithful  translations  of  the 
Word  of  God,  a  responsibility  is  imposed  upon  them,  de- 
manding for  its  full  discharge,  an  unwonted  degree  of 
union,  of  devotion,  and  of  strenuous  persevering  effort 
throughout  the  entire  body."  And  in  their  Annual  Ke- 
port,  the  society  stigmatizes  all  the  translations  made  for 
the  heathen,  excepting  only  such  as  may  be  published 
under  Baptist  auspices,  as  "  versions,  in  which  the  real 
meaning  of  words  is  purposely  kept  out  of  sight,  so  that 
Baptists  cannot  circulate  faithful  versions,  unless  they 
print  them  at  their  own  expense."  And  they  add  :  "It  is 
known  that  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  the 
American  Bible  Society,  have  virtually  combined  to  ob- 
scure at  least  a  part  of  the  divine  revelation,  and  continue 
to  circulate  versions  of  the  Bible,  unfaithfid,  at  least,  so 
far  as  the  subject  of  baptism  is  concerned." 

It  is  true,  that  a  majority  of  those  united  in  the  "Ameri- 
can and  Foreign  Bible  Society,"  condemn  the  new  version 
movement,  and  declare  that  they  are  unwilling  to  see  our 
venerable  English  version  altered  in  a  letter.  And  yet, 
we  believe  we  do  them  no  injustice,  when  we  speak  of  the 


xiv  Preliminary  Statement. 

formation  of  the  "Bible  Union"  as  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  formation  of  their  society,  and  of  the  spirit 
in  which  they  have  pursued  their  work; — and  when  we 
hold,  not  those  engaged  in  the  "  new  version  "  alone,  hut 
the  whole  Baptist  church,  directly,  a  party  to  this  trans- 
lation controversy. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  third  point  of  difference,  in 
which  the  Ba|)tist  church  stands  as  the  one  party,  and  all 
other  Christian  churches  in  our  land,  as  the  other. 

Besides  these  three  points  of  diflference,  there  is  a 
Fourth,  "Baptismal  Eegeneration,"  as  it  is  popularly 
styled;  in  which  the  Evangelical  Protestant  churches  are 
ranged  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Latin  and  Greek  churches, 
together  with  a  party  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church, 
represented  by  the  authors  of  "The  Oxford  Tracts,"  are 
ranged  on  the  other.  The  Evangelical  Protestant  churches 
agree  in  holding  that  Baptism  is  "a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,"  and  that  it  symbolizes  regeneration. 
The  church  of  Eome  teaches  that  "  the  Sacraments  confer 
grace  ex  opere  operato,  by  the  act  performed,"  and  that 
"Baptism  is  the  instrumental  cause  of  justification," — • 
meaning  by  justification  "  not  remission  of  sins  merely,  but 
also  sanctification  and  renewal  of  the  inward  man." 

In  the  first  editions  of  "The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,"  this 
fourth  question  was  not  discussed.  In  the  present  edi- 
tion, in  order  to  make  the  work  complete  as  a  part  of  a 
treatise  on  the  Sacraments  of  the  New  Testament,  a 
"Fourth  Part"  has  been  added,  in  which  the  question  of 
Baptismal  Regeneration  is  carefully  examined,  like  the 
questions  previously  considered,  in  the  light  of  God's 
"Word,  and  God's  Word  alone. 


THE 


DOCTRINE   OF   BAPTISMS. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Jl.  Statement  of  the  Question.  ?2.  Limitation  to  Baptizo. —Reasons  for  this. 
§3.  Limitation  to  Bapfizo  used  as  a  religious  Term— Reasons  for  this— His- 
tory of  the  Hellenistic  Greek,    g  i.  Radical  Fallacy  in  the  Baptist  Argument. 

§  1.  Statement  of  the  Question. 

The  word  haptizo  is  a  word  used  in  the  Scriptures  to  desig- 
nate the  performance  of  a  Christian  rite,  in  which  water  is 
appHed  to  the  body,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  Either 
this  word  is  specific  as  to  mode,  Hke  our  EngHsh  words, 
dip,  sprinkle,  pour ;  or  it  is  generic,  denoting  simply  the 
production  of  an  effect,  like  our  English  words,  conse- 
crate, purify,  cleanse. 

The  Baptist  affirms  that  haptizo  is  a  specific  term,  that 
it  "  has  bid  one  signification —  it  always  signifies  to  dip, 
never  expressing  anything  hut  ')node." ' 

We  affirm  that  haptizo,  when  used  as  a  religious  term 
(and  it  is  always  so  used  in  the  New  Testament),  is  a 
generic  term,  having  no  reference  to  mode  ;  and  hence,  to 
translate  it  by  dip,  immerse,  sprinkle  or  pour,  will  be  to 
mis-translate  the  word  of  God. 

In  this  statement  of  the  question,  we  have  purposely 
limited  it  to  the  word  haptizo,  and  to  that  word  used  as  a 
religious  term. 

*  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  55. 


2  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

§  2.   Question  limited  to  baptizo. 

The  question  is  limited  to  baptizo.  Nothing  is  affirmed 
respecting  bapto,  a  word  frequently  used  by  the  sacred 
writers.     This  limitation  is  made  for  two  reasons. 

First.  The  word  baptizo,  is  the  word  invariably  used, 
in  the  inspired  Scriptures,  when  speaking  of  the  rite  of 
Christian  baptism  :  the  word  bapto,  although  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  New  Testament,  is  never  applied  to  that 
ordinance.  Even  admitting,  then,  that  bapto  is  the  pri- 
mitive word,  and  baptizo  a  derivative  from  it,  the  fact 
that  the  sacred  writers,  when  speaking  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, always  use  the  latter,  and  never  in  one  instance  the 
former,  is  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  they  under- 
stood the  words  as  differing  in  meaning. 

Second.  Although  most  of  the  earlier  Baptist  writers 
contended  as  strenuously  for  the  uniform  modal  meaning 
of  bapto,  as  for  that  of  baptizo,  their  later  Avriters  give  up 
this  point :  and  claim,  and  we  think  they  do  so  fairly, 
that  the  word  baptizo  alone,  is  in  controversy. 

Commenting  on  Dr.  Gale's  translation  of  bapto,  as 
used  by  Homer,  in  his  "  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  the 
Mice,"  Dr.  Carson  translates  the  sentence  in  which  the 
word  occurs — "  He  fell  and  breathed  no  more,  and  the 
lake  was  tinged  with  blood ; "  and  adds :  "  To  suppose 
that  there  is  here  any  extravagant  allusion  to  the  literal 
immersion  or  dipping  of  a  lake,  is  a  monstrous  perversion 
of  taste.  The  lake  is  said  to  be  dyed,  not  to  be  dipped, 
nor  poured,  nor  sprinkled.  Tliere  is  in  the  word  no  re- 
ference to  mode.  Had  Baptists  entrenched  themselves 
here,  they  would  have  saved  themselves  much  useless  toil, 
and  much  false  criticism,  without  straining  to  the  im- 
peachment of  their  candor  or  their  taste.  What  a  mon- 
strous paradox  in  rhetoric  is  the  figure  of  the  dipping  of  a 
lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse  !  Yet  Dr.  Gale  supposes  the 
lake  dipped  by  hyperbole.  'The  literal  sense,'  says  he,  'is 
the  lake  was  dipped  in  blood.'  Never  was  there  such  a 
figure.  The  lake  is  not  said  to  be  dipped  in  blood,  but  to 
be  dyed  in  blood."  ' 

'  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  48. 


Question  limited  to  Baptize.  3 

In  the  portion  of  the  "  New  Version  "  wliicli  lias  been 
published  by  the  "Bible  Union,"  Rev.  xix.  13,  in  which 
the  word  bapto  occurs,  is  translated  —  "And  he  was 
clothed  with  a  garment  dyed  with  blood;  and  his  name  is 
called  The  "Word  of  God."  The  substitution  of  the  word 
dyed  for  dipped  in  this  passage,  we  suppose  may  fairly  be 
considered  as  a  formal  abandonment  of  the  ground  once 
maintained  by  Baptists,  in  so  far  as  the  word  hapto  is 
concerned.  And  as  our  purpose  is,  to  treat  the  several 
questions  respecting  baptism,  with  reference  to  the  posi- 
tions which  the  parties  now  occupy,  we  shall  limit  our  ex- 
amination to  baptizo  alone. 

§  3.  Question  limited  to  bapttzo,  used  as  a  religious  term. 

Words  often  change  their  meaning,  with  variations  in 
the  faith,  sentiments,  and  manners  of  the  people  by  whom 
they  are  used.  As  an  instance  of  this,  in  our  language, 
we  may  cite  the  words  "religion"  and  "religious" — 
words  which  during  the  period  of  papal  dominion  in  Great 
Britain,  ha,d  a  meaning  very  different  from  that  which 
they  now  have.  "  In  former  times,"  writes  Trench,  "  a 
religious  person,  did  not  mean  any  one  who  felt  and  al- 
lowed the  bonds  which  bound  him  to  God  and  to  his 
fellow  man,  but  one  who  had  taken  peculiar  vows  upon 
him ;  a  member  of  one  of  the  monkish  orders.  A  reli- 
gious house  did  not  mean,  nor  does  it  now  mean  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  a  Christian  household,  ordered  in  the 
fear  of  God,  but  a  house  in  which  these  persons  were 
gathered  together  according  to  the  rule  of  some  man, 
Benedict  or  Dominic,  or  some  other,  A  religion,  meant 
not  a  service  of  God,  but  an  order  of  monkery;  and 
taking  the  monastic  vows,  was  termed  going  into  a  reli- 
gion. That,  then,  was  religion,  and  nothing  else  was  con- 
sidered deserving  the  name !  And  religious,  was  a  title 
which  might  not  be  given  to  parents  and  children,  hus- 
bands and  wives,  men  and  women  fulfilling  faithfully  and 
holily,  in  the  world,  the  several  duties  of  their  stations, 
but  only  to  those  who  had  devised  self-chosen  services  for 
themselves."  * 

»  Trench  on  the  Study  of  Words,  p.  19. 


4  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Words  used  to  designate  officers  in  the  cliurcli,  or  reli- 
gious rites  and  even  doctrines,  often  acquire  a  meaning, 
when  thus  used,  entirely  different  from  their  original 
meaning.  This  use  of  these  terms,  we  call  their  religious, 
as  contradistinguished  from  their  secular  use.  Thus — 
the  original  meaning  of  the  word  bishop  is  overseer.  In 
our  language,  it  is  used  exclusively  as  a  religious  term ; 
and  no  one  would  think  of  speaking  of  a  bishop  of  a  cot- 
ton factory  or  of  a  southern  plantation.  The  original 
meaning  of  the  word  elder,  and  its  meaning  now,  when 
used  as  a  secular  term,  is  an  old  raayi.  And  yet  I  have 
known  elders  in  the  Baptist  Church  not  twenty-one  years 
of  age.  The  original  meaning  of  the  word  supper,  and 
its  meaning  now,  when  used  as  a  secular  term,  is,  "  the 
evening  meal"  (Webster).  When,  using  it  as  a  religious 
term,  we  speak  of  the  sacrament  of  the  supper — or, 
simply,  the  supper,  we  m3an  a  Christian  rite,  which  is 
not  a  meal,  and  which  in  this  country,  is  very  frequently 
administered  in  the  forenoon. 

Such  changes  in  the  meaning  of  words  as  these,  are 
facts  familiar  to  the  student,  in  the  history  of  every  lan- 
guage. They  take  place,  in  consequence  of  changes  in 
the  faith,  or  manners  and  customs  of  a  people,  even  where 
that  people  continue  to  speak  the  same  language.  But 
where  a  language  comes  to  be  spoken  by  a  people  of  dif- 
ferent faith  from  those  to  whom  it  originally  belonged,  as, 
for  example,  a  heathen  language  comes  to  be  spoken  by  a 
Christian  people,  these  changes  in  meaning  are  greatest 
and  most  frequent. 

Trench,  in  his  work  on  "the  Study  of  Words,"  gives 
some  striking  illustrations  of  these  remarks.  ''In  the 
Greek  language  " — writes  he — "  there  is  a  word  for  hu- 
mility :  but  this  humility  meant  for  the  Creek,  meanness 
of  spirit.  He  who  brought  in  the  Christian  grace  of 
humility,  did  in  so  doing,  rescue  also  the  word  which  ex- 
presses it,  for  nobler  uses,  and  to  a  far  higher  dignity 
than  hitherto  it  had  attained.  There  were  Angels  (mes- 
sengers), before  heaven  had  been  opened,  but  these  only 
earthly  messengers;  martyrs  (witnesses)  also,  but  not 
witnesses  unto   blood,  nor  yet  for  God's  highest  truth;- 


£aj)tizo  used  as  a  Religloiis  Term.  5 

apostles  (those  sent),  but  sent  of  men ;  advocates  (plead- 
ers), but  not  with  '  the  Father.'  Paradise,  was  a  word 
common,  in  slightly  ditTerent  forms,  to  almost  all  the 
nations  of  the  East ;  but  they  meant  by  it  only  some 
royal  park  or  garden  of  delights ;  till  for  the  Jews,  it  was 
exalted  to  signify  the  wondrous  abode  of  our  first  pa- 
rents ;  and  higher  honors  awaited  it  still,  when  on  the  lips 
of  the  Lord,  it  signified  the  blissful  waiting- place  of  the 
faithful  departed  souls  (Luke  xxiii.  43) :  Yea,  the  hea- 
venly blessedness  itself  (Rev.  ii.  7).  Nor  was  the  word 
regeneration  unknown  to  the  Greeks.  They  could  speak 
of  the  earth's  regeneration  in  the  spring-time;  and  of 
memory  as  the  regeneration  of  knowledge.  The  Jewish 
historian  could  describe  the  return  of  his  countrymen 
from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  their  re-establish- 
ment, under  Cyrus,  in  their  own  land,  as  the  regeneration 
of  the  Jewish  state;  but  still,  the  word,  on  the  lips  of 
either  Jew  or  Greek,  was  very  far  removed  from  that 
honor  reserved  for  it  in  the  Christian  dispensation — 
namely,  that  it  should  be  the  bearer  of  one  of  the  chiefest 
and  most  blessed  mysteries  of  the  faith.  And  many  other 
words,  in  like  manner,  there  are,  '  fetched  from  the  very 
dregs  of  paganism,'  as  one  has  said,  which  words  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  not  refused  to  employ  for  the  setting 
forth  of  the  great  truths  of  redemption.  Reversing  in 
this,  the  impious  deed  of  Belshazzar,  who  profaned  the 
sacred  vessels  of  God's  house  to  sinful  and  idolatrous  uses 
(Dan.  V.  2),  that  blessed  Spirit  has  often  consecrated  the 
veiy  idol  vessels  of  Babylon  to  the  service  of  the  sanc- 
tuary." ^ 

The  remark  is  made  by  one  of  the  ablest  modern  criti- 
cal scholars,  "  Classical  use,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  is 
not  only  in  this  study" — i.  e.  the  critical  study  of  the 
New  Testament — "sometimes  unavailable,  but  may  even 
mislead.  The  sacred  use  and  the  classical  are  often  very 
different."  ^ 

That  we  may  have  a  clearer  understanding  of  this  sub- 

*  Trench  on  the  Study  of  Words,  pp.  46,  47. 
'  Campbell  on  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  p.  58. 


6  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

ject,  and  especially  that  we  may  see  wliither  we  must  look 
for  reliable  authority  in  the  interpretation  of  the  words 
of  the  New  Testament,  let  us  glance  at  the  history  of  the 
Hellenistic  Greek,  or  Greek  of  the  synagogue,  as  it  has 
been  called,  the  peculiar  Greek  in  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  written. 

"  The  persecutions  with  which  the  Jews  were  harassed 
under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  concurring  with  several  other 
causes,  occasioned  the  dispersion  of  a  great  part  of  their 
nation  throughout  the  provinces  of  Asia  Minor ;  Assyria, 
Phoenicia,  Persia,  Arabia,  Lybia,  and  Egypt;  which  dis- 
persion was,  in  process  of  time,  extended  to  Achaia,  Ma- 
cedonia and  Italy."  (For  the  state  of  things  in  our 
Lord's  day,  see  Acts  ii.  5-11.)  ''  The  unavoidable  conse- 
quence of  this  was,  in  a  few  ages,  to  all  those  who  settled 
in  distant  lands,  the  total  loss  of  that  dialect  which  their 
fathers  had  brought  out  of  Babylon  into  Palestine.  But 
this  is  to  be  understood,  with  the  exception  of  the 
learned,  who  studied  the  Oriental  language  by  books." 

"  At  length  a  complete  version  of  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  made  into  Greek ;  a  language  which 
was  then,  and  continued  for  many  ages  afterwards,  in  far 
more  general  use  than  any  other.  This  is  what  is  called 
the  Sept'uagint,  or  version  of  the  seventy  (probably  be- 
cause approved  by  the  Sanhedrim)  which  was  begun,  by 
order  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  King  of  Egypt,  for  the 
Alexandrian  Library,"  (about  269  b.  c).  At  first,  no 
more  than  the  Pentateuch  was  translated,  which  was  soon 
followed  by  a  version  of  the  other  books.  This  is  doubt- 
less the  first  translation  that  was  attempted  of  the  Sacred 
Writings." 

"It  will  readily  be  imagined,  that  all  the  Jews  who  in- 
habited Grecian  cities,  where  the  Oriental  tongues  were 
unknown,  would  be  solicitous  to  obtain  copies  of  this 
translation.  To  excite  in  them  this  solicitude,  patriotism 
would  concur  with  piety,  and  indeed  almost  every  motive 
that  could  operate  upon  men." 

"  Let  us  attend  to  the  consequences  which  would  na- 
turally follow.  Wherever  Greek  was  the  mother  tongue, 
this  version  would  come  to  bs  used,  not  only  in  private  in 


Baptizo  used  as  a  Religious  Term.  7 

Jewish  houses,  but  also  iu  public  in  their  schools  and 
synagogues,  in  the  explanation  of  the  weekly  lesson 
from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  The  style  of  it  would 
consequently  soon  become  the  standard  of  language  to 
them,  on  religious  subjects.  Hence  would  arise  a  certain 
uniformity  in  phraseology  and  idiom  among  the  Grecian 
Jews,  wherever  dispersed,  with  regard  to  their  religion 
and  sacred  rites ;  whatever  were  the  particular  dialects 
which  prevailed  in  the  places  of  their  residence,  and  were 
used  by  them  in  conversing  on  ordinary  matters." 

"  Hence,  if  we  would  enter  thoroughly  into  the  idiom 
of  the  New  Testament,  we  must  familiarize  ourselves  with 
that  of  the  Septuagint ;  and  if  we  would  enter  thoroughly 
into  the  idiom  of  the  Septuagint,  we  must  accustom  our- 
selves to  the  study,  not  only  of  the  original  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  of  the  dialects  spoken  in  Palestine,  be- 
tween the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonish  capti- 
vity, and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  P^omans ; 
for  this  last,  as  well  as  the  Hebrew,  has  affected  the  lan- 
guage both  of  the  old  Greek  translation  and  of  the  New 
Testament." 

"  Such  is  the  origin  and  the  character  of  the  idiom 
which  prevails  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and  Evan- 
gelists ;  and  the  remarkable  conformity  of  the  new  revela- 
tion, whith  we  have  by  them,  though  written  in  a  different 
language,  to  the  idiom  of  the  old.  It  has  been  distin- 
guished by  the  name,  Hellenistic  Greek,  not  with  a  critical 
accuracy,  if  regard  be  had  to  the  derivation  of  the  word, 
but  with  sufficient  exactness,  if  attention  be  given  to  the 
application  which  the  Hebrews  made  of  the  term  Hel- 
lenist :  whereby  they  distinguished  their  Jewish  brethren 
who  lived  in  Grecian  cities,  and  spoke  Greek.  It  has 
been,  by  some  of  late,  after  father  Simon,  more  properly 
termed  the  Greek  of  the  synagogue." 

"  It  is  acknowledged,  that  it  cannot  strictly  be  denomi- 
nated a  separate  language,  or  even  dialect,  when  the  term 
dialect  is  conceived  to  imply  peculiarities  in  declension 
and  conjugation.  But  with  the  greatest  justice,  it  is 
denominated  a  peculiar  idiom,  being  not  only  Hebrew  and 
Chaldaic  phrases,  put  in  Greek  words,  but  even  single 


8  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Greek  words  used  in  senses,  in  which  they  never  occur  in 
the  writings  of  'profane  authors,  and  lohich  can  be  learned 
only  from  the  extent  of  signifcation  given  to  some  Hebrev) 
or  Chaldaic  word,  corresponding  to  the  Greek,  in  its  prim- 
itive and  most  ordinary  sense."  ^ 

On  these  facts  in  the  history  of  the  Hellenistic  Greek, 
the  idiom  in  which  the  New  Testament  is  written,  Camp- 
bell bases  his  remark,  already  quoted,  "classic  use,  is  not 
only"  —  in  the  critical  study  of  the  New  Testament  — 
"sometimes  unavailable,  but  may  even  mislead.  The 
sacred  use  and  the  classical  are  often  very  different.  And 
the  further  remark,  that  "those  words  in  particular, 
which  have  been  current  in  the  explanations  given  in  the 
Hellenistic  synagogues  and  schools,  have  with  their  natu- 
ralization among  the  Israelites,  acquired  in  the  Jewish  use 
an  infusion  of  the  national  spirit.  Though  the  words 
therefore  are  Greek,  Jewish  erudition  is  of  more  service 
than  Grecian  for  bringing  us  to  the  true  acceptation  of 
them  in  the  sacred  writings." — "  In  determining  the  dif- 
ferent acceptation  of  some  words,  as  used  by  Jews  and 
Pagans,  the  Scriptures  will  ever  be  found  their  own  best 
interpreter." 

The  two  sacraments  in  the  Christian  Church,  are  termed 
in  Scripture,  the  one  baptism,  the  other  "  The  Lord's 
Supper"  (deipnon).  (See  1  Cor.  xi.  20,  21.)  As  "furnish- 
ing at  once  an  illustration  and  a  proof,  of  Campbell's 
remarks,  quoted  above,  we  cite  this  word,  deipnon.  Ac- 
cording to  invariable  classic  usage,  this  word  means  either 
"  the  chief  meal  of  the  day,  taken  among  the  Greeks, 
toward  or  at  evening,  after  the  labors  of  the  day  were 
over;  or,  a  banquet  or  feast."  And  in  this  sense  it  is 
used  both  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Testament, 
when  used  as  a  secular  term.  In  the  Septuagint,  "  Bel- 
shazzar,  the  king,  made  a  great /casi  (deipnon)  to  a  thou- 
sand of  his  lords,  and  drank  wine  before  the  thousand." 
(Dan.  V.  1.)  In  the  New  Testament,  "  And  he  said  unto 
him,  a  certain  man  made  a  great  supper  (deipnon),  and 
bade  many."     Luke  xiv.  16.     And  yet,  nothing  can  be 

'  Campbell  on  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  pp.  31,  32,  58,  62. 


Radical  Fallacy  in  the  Baptiat  Argument.  9 

more  evident  than  that,  used  as  a  reHgious  term,  to 
designate  a  sacrament  in  the  Christian  Church,  the  word 
deipaoii  has  a  signification  very  different  from  that  in 
which  it  is  used  by  classic  Greek  writers,  and  even  by  the 
New  Testament  writers,  when  they  use  it  as  a  secular 
term.  Hence  Paul  writes,  "When  ye  come  together 
therefore  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's 
Supper  (deipnon).  For  in  eating  every  one  taketh  before 
other  his  own  supper ;  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another  is 
drunken.  What !  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  drink  in  ? 
or  despise  ye  the  church  of  God,  and  shame  them  that  have 
not."  (1  Cor.  xi.  20,  22.)  The  Lord's  Supper  is  neither 
a  banquet  nor  a  meal.  And  for  making  it  a  supper  {de- 
ipnon) in  the  classic  sense  of  that  term,  Paul  declares  that 
God's  judgments  were  upon  the  church  at  Corinth,  "  For 
this  cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and 
many  sleep."     (1  Cor.  xi.  30.) 

This  is  one  of  those  cases  in  which  "  classic  use  will 
mislead  " — "  in  which  Jewish  erudition  is  of  more  service 
than  Grecian  in  bringing  us  to  the  true  acceptation  of  a 
term  in  the  sacred  writings  " — "in  which  a  single  word  is 
used  in  a  sense  in  which  it  never  occurs  in  profane  au- 
thors, and  which  can  be  learned  only  from  the  extent  of 
signification  given  to  some  Hebrew  or  Chaldaic  word,  cor- 
responding to  the  Greek  in  its  primitive  and  most  ordi- 
nary sense  " — "  in  which  the  Scriptures  are  their  own  best 
interpreter." 

We  have  dwelt  upon  these  principles  of  interpretation, 
at  much  greater  length  than  would  otherwise  have  seemed 
necessary,  because,  whilst  the  thorough  scholar  must  be 
familiar  with  them,  the  same  is  not  true  of  the  general 
reader,  and  they  have  a  most  important  bearing  upon  the 
decision  of  the  question  under  examination. 

§  4.  Radical  Fallacy  in  the  Baptist  Argument. 

It  is  in  the  disregard  of  the  distinction  between  the 

sacred  and  the  secular  sense  of  the  word,  that  the  radical 

fallacy  of  Dr.  Carson's  argument  lies — and  the  same  is 

true  of  every  other  Baptist  argument  we  have  read — in 

1* 


10  TJie  Doctri/ie  of  Baptisms. 

80  far  as  that  argument  is  intended  to  determine  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptizo. 

(1.)  Dr.  Carson  sneers  at  the  distinction  between  the 
sacred  and  secular  sense  of  the  word.  Thus  he  writes  : — 
"  Pedobaptists  often  take  refuge  in  a  supposed  sacred  or 
scriptural  use,  that  they  may  be  screened  from  the  fire 
of  tlie  lexicons."  ^ 

in  addition  to  the  words  already  cited,  as  illustrating 
and  establishing  this  distinction,  we  may  cite  such  words 
as — 

Presbyter  (presbuteros).  In  its  classical  and  secular 
use,  it  signi^es  "  an- old  7nan."  "Your  young  men  shall 
see  visions,  and  your  old  men  (presbuteroi)  shall  dream 
dreams."  (Acts  ii.  17.)  In  its  sacred  sense  it  signifies  an 
officer  in  the  church,  who  might  be  a  young  man.  Timothy 
was  a  presbyter  (see  1  Tim.  iv.  14) ;  and  yet  Paul  writes 
to  him,  "  Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth."    (1  Tim.  iv.  12.) 

Pastor  {poi7ncen).  In  its  classical  and  secular  use,  it 
signifies  a  keeper  of  sheep,  a  Jierdsman.  "  And  Abel  was  a 
keeper  of  sheep  {poivicen),"  (Gen.  iv.  2).  In  its  sacred 
sense  it  signifies  "  the  teacher  and  spiritual  guide  of  a 
particular  church."  "  And  he  gave  some  apostles,  and 
some  prophets,  and  some  evangelists,  and  some  p)astors, 
ipoimenas)  and  teachers."     (Eph.  iv.  11). 

Church  {ekklcesia).  In  its  classical  and  secular  use,  it 
signifies  an  assembly,  even  though  it  be  a  tumultuous  one. 
"  But  if  ye  inquire  any  thing  concerning  other  matters,  it 
shall  be  determined  in  a  lawful  assembly "  {ekklcesia), 
(Acts  xix.  39).  In  its  sacred  sense  its  meaning  is  the 
same  with  our  English  word  church.  "  Unto  the  church 
[ekklcesia)  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,"  (1  Cor.  i.  2).  In- 
deed, we  do  not  know  of  a  single  term  belonging  to  the 
class  of  words  to  which  baptismos  belongs,  words  used 
to  designate  rites  or  offices,  in  the  Christian  church,  which 
has  not  a  sacred  sense,  diff'erent  from  its  secular  and 
classic  sense :  and  nothmg  will  involve  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture  in  more  inextricable  confusion,  than  just  the 
disregard  of  this  distinction. 

'  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  58. 


Radical  Fallacy  in  iJie  Baptist  Argument.  11 

(2.)  Having  cited  a  number  of  instances,  from  classic 
Greek  writers,  in  which  he  thinks  it  evident  from  the 
context,  that  baptizo  is  used  in  the  sense  of  dip,  and 
added  several  also  from  the  writings  of  Josephus,  in  all 
of  which,  with  one  exception,  ^  the  word  is  evidently  used 
as  a  secular  term :  Dr.  Uarson,  when  he  comes  to  the  ex- 
amination of  its  use  in  Scripture,  in  those  passages  by 
which  its  meaning  as  a  sacred  term  can  alone  be  deter- 
mined, such  as  Mark  vii.  4,  cuts  the  matter  short  by 
saying,  "  Having  found  the  meaning  of  the  word,  by  the 
testimony  of  the  whole  range  of  Greek  literature — having 
found  that  it  signifies  immerse,  and  nothing  else,  have  I 
not  an  unquestionable  right  to  allege  this  proved  mean- 
ing?"— "Dr.  Wardlaw  says,  with  respect  to  the  im- 
mersion of  beds,  '  he  who  can  receive  it,  let  him  receive 
it.'  I  say,  he  who  dares  to  reject  it,  rejects  the  testimony 
of  God."  2 

We  may,  for  argument's  sake,  grant  to  Dr.  Carson  all 
that  he  thinks  he  has  proved  respecting  the  classical  use 
of  baptizo,  and  its  use  as  a  secular  term  by  Josephus,  and 
yet  say,  "  You  have  proved  nothing  to  the  point."  The 
unquestionable  fact,  that  all  other  terms  belonging  to  the 
same  class  with  baptizo,  have  a  sacred  as  well  as  a  secu- 
lar sense,  renders  it  probable,  a  priori,  that  the  same  is 
true  of  baptizo  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  this  sense,  when  used  as  a 
sacred  term,  which  is  alone  in  controversy.  If  upon  such 
principles  as  those  of  Dr.  Carson,  it  can  be  proved  that 
there  is  no  valid  baptism  without  immersion ;  upon  the 
same  principles,  and  with  a  much  greater  array  of  evi- 
dence, it  can  be  proved  that  the  Lord's  supper  [deipnon] 
is  not  validly  administered  in  any  church  on  earth,  at  the 
present  day.  For,  certainly,  the  eating  a  morsel  of  bread, 
and  swallowing  a  single  sup  of  wine,  is  not  more  unlike  a 
banquet  or  the  principal  meal  of  the  day,  than  pouring  or 
sprinkling  a  little  water  on  the  person  to  be  baptized,  is 
unlike  the  entire  immersion  of  the  person.  And  if  de- 
parture from  the  classical  and  secular  sense  of  the  name 

*  For  an  examination  of  this  one  instance,  see  note  to  ?  15. 
'  Carson  on  Baptism,  pp.  398,  72. 


12  The  Dodrme  of  Baptisms. 

of  one  sacrament  vitiates  its  administration,  the   same 
must  be  true  of  the  other  also. 

The  "  translation  question,"  must,  if  possible,  be  settled 
by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  alone ;  or  if  compelled  to 
go  beyond  the  Scriptures,  we  must  ever  bear  in  mind,  the 
distinction  between  the  secular  and  sacred  use  of  such 
terms  as  the  one  in  controversy ;  and  our  appeal  should 
be,  not  to  the  classic  Greek  writers,  who  did  not  write  in 
the  dialect  of  Judea,  but  to  Josephus  and  the  earlier 
Greek  Fathers.  We  believe  that  the  question  can  be 
settled  satisfactorily,  from  the  Scriptures  alone :  and, 
hence,  to  the  Scriptures  alone  shall  we  appeal.  And 
bearing  in  mind,  the  sacred  use  of  such  terms  as  baptizo, 
we  insist  upon  the  second  limitation  of  the  question,  viz. : 
that  it  be  limited  to  baptizo,  used  as  a  religious  or  sacred 
term. 


Tlie  Doctrine  of  Baptisms.  13 


CHAPTER  II. 

26.  Jno.  iii.  25,  26.  A'aWan'ro (purify),  used  as  a  synonym  for  hapiizo.  J  6.  Jno.  i. 
19-25.  Confirmation  of  this  sense  of  baptizo.  1 7.  Significance  of  John's  si- 
lence respecting  the  nature  of  baptism. 

§  5.  John  Hi.  22-30,  and  iv.  1-3. 

John  iii.  22-30.  "  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea ;  and  there  he  tarried 
with  them  and  baptized.  And  John  also  was  bap- 
tizing in  -^non,  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was 
much  water  there;  and  they  came  and  were  bap- 
tized. For  John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison.  Then 
there  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  dis- 
ciples and  the  Jews,  about  purifying  (katharisniou). 
And  they  came  unto  John  and  said  unto  him :  Rabbi, 
he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thoa 
bearest  witness,  behold  the  same  baptizeth  (baptizei), 
and  all  men  come  to  him.  John  answered,  and  said : 
A  man  can  receive  nothing  except  it  be  given  him 
from  Heaven.  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  witness  that  I 
said,  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but  that  I  am  sent  before 
him.  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom ; 
but  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  which  standeth 
and  heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the 
bridegroom's  voice;  this  my  joy  therefore  is  fulfilled. 
He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease." 

John  iv.  1-3.  "  When,  therefore,  the  Lord  knew  that  the 
Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John,  (Though  Jesus  himself 
baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,)  He  left  Judea  and 
departed  again  into  Galilee." 


14  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

What  was  this  "question  about  purifying,"  which  is 
here  said  to  have  arisen  between  some  of  John's  disciples 
and  the  Jews?  According  to  the  plain  record  of  the  text, 
the  question  is  the  one  which  they  immediately  propose 
to  John :  "And  they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him, 
Kabbi,  He  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom 
thou  bearest  witness,  behold  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all 
men  come  to  him."  Is  his  baptism  a  higher  and  holier 
baptism  than  thine?  And  is  it  about  to  take  the  place  of 
thy  baptism  ?  A  question  most  natural  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case;  John  and  Jesus  being  engaged  in 
baptizing  in  places  not  very  remote  from  each  other,  and 
the  Jews,  who,  a  little  while  before,  had  flocked  to  John's 
baptism,  now  turning  to  that  of  Jesus  in  such  numbers, 
that  "  he  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John." 
With  the  very  imperfect,  and,  in  many  respects,  erroneous 
views  of  the  nature  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  then  uni- 
versally entertained  in  Judea,  we  can  hardly  conceive  how 
this  question  could  have  failed  to  arise. 

It  is  just  this  question  to  which  John  replies.  "John 
answered  and  said :  A  man  can  receive  nothing  except  it 
be  given  him  from  Heaven.  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  wit- 
ness, that  I  said  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but  that  I  am  sent 
before  him.  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease." 
As  if  he  had  said :  This  is  all  according  to  divine  appoint- 
ment ;  I  never  claimed  any  other  honor,  as  compared  with 
him,  but  such  as  "a  friend  of  the  bridegroom,"  has,  as  com- 
pared with  the  "  bridegroom  "  himself ;  I  the  forerunner 
of  Messiah,  he  the  Messiah  himself.  "He  must  in- 
crease, but  I  must  decrease." 

Thus  understood,  the  interpretation  of  this  whole  pas- 
sage is  perfectly  simple ;  and  each  part  consistent  with 
every  other.  And  now,  we  ask  the  reader  to  notice  that 
this  interpretation  proceeds  upon  the  supposition,  that 
what  is  called  "  a  question  about  purifying,  in  v.  25,  is, 
in  V.  26,  stated  as  a  question  about  baptism.  That  is, 
that  John  the  Baptist,  and  his  disciples  and  the  Jews,  and 
John  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  record,  regarded  baptism 
as,  in  substance,  a  "  purification." 

Dr.  Carson,   to  get  rid  of  this  conclusion,  takes  the 


The  Doclrine  of  Baptisms.  15 

ground :  Ist.  That  when  "  they  came  to  John,"  they 
"  did  not  state  the  case  concerning  purifying ;  they  stated 
another  case  quite  different,  one  dilFerent  from  that  at 
issue  between  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Jews."  ^  Let 
the  reade'r  turn  to  the  record.  "  There  arose  a  question 
between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews,  about 
purifying.  And  they  came  unto  John  and  said  unto 
him — John  answered  and  said;"  and  especially  bearing 
in  mind  that  the  modern  division  of  the  New  Testament 
into  chapters  and  verses,  is  of  no  authority ;  say,  whether 
an  ingenuous  interpretation  of  that  record  will  admit  of 
Dr.  Carson's  explanation.  2d.  That  our  exposition  pro- 
ceeds upon  the  assumption  "  that  if  two  words  refer  to 
the  same  ordinance,  they  must  be  identical  in  meaning," 
whilst  "  nothing  is  more  unfounded.  There  are  situa- 
tions in  which  two  words  may  be  interchanged  at  the 
option  of  the  writer,  while  they  are  not  perfectly  synony- 
mous."^ To  this  we  reply,  synonymous  terms  are  seldom 
identical  in  meaning.  Our  treatises  on  synonyms  are 
treatises  to  point  out  the  differences  in  meaning  between 
such  terms.  In  the  case  before  us,  purification  is  the 
more  comprehensive  term,  whilst  baptism  is  more  limited 
in  meaning ;  and  when  we  say  that  these  terms  are  used 
as  synonyms,  we  mean  that  the  former  includes  the  latter; 
that  BAPTISM  is  a  species  of  purification.  We  by  no 
means  assert,  "  that  if  two  words  refer  to  the  same  ordi- 
nance, they  must  be  identical  in  meaning." 

§  6.  John  i.  lG-25. 

John  i.  16-25.  "And  this  is  the  record  of  John,  when 
the  Jews  sent  priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusalem,  to 
ask  him.  Who  art  thou  ?  And  he  confessed  and  de- 
nied not ;  but  confessed,  I  am  not  the  Christ.  And 
they  asked  him;  What  then?  Art  thou  Ehas?  And 
he  saith,  I  am  not.  Art  thou  that  prophet  ?  And 
he  answered,  no.  Then  said  they  unto  him :  Who 
art  thou  ?  that  we  may  give  an  answer  to  them  that 
sent   us.     What  sayest   thou   of  thyself?     He   said 

'  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  432.  »  Ibid.  pp.  432,  433. 


16  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

I  am  tlie  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Make 
straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  saitli  the  Prophet 
Esaias.  And  they  which  were  sent  were  of  the 
Pharisees.  And  they  asked  him,  and  said  unto  him, 
Why  BAPTIZEST  {baptizeis)  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not 
that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  Prophet  ?  " 

How  comes  it  that  the  Pharisees  ask  of  John  this  ques- 
tion, "Why  BAPTIZEST  thou  then?"  We  answer:  Because 
the  Jews,  as  instructed  out  of  the  Prophets,  expected 
Messiah,  when  he  came,  to  come  as  a  great  Purifier 
among  them,  and  they  understood  baptism,  as  adminis- 
tered by  John,  to  be  substantially  a  purification.  There- 
fore it  was,  that  whilst  they  could  understand  how  a  bap- 
tism might  properly  be  administered  by  Messiah  himself, 
or  Elias,  who  was  to  come  as  his  forerunner,  they  could 
not  understand  the  propriety  of  John's  baptizing,  when  he 
expressly  disclaimed  being  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

The  prophecies  upon  which  the  Jews  based  this  expec- 
tation, were  such  as:  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  28): — "Then  will 
I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean 
(purified);  from  all  your  filthiness  (uncleanness)  and 
from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  (purify)  you.  A  new 
heart  also,  will  I  give  you ;  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of 
your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I 
will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in 
my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments  and  do 
them.  And  ye  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  gave  to 
your  fathers,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be 
your  God."  And  (Mai  iii.  2,  3)  "But  who  may  abide 
the  day  of  his  coming  ?  And  who  shall  stand  when  he 
appeareth  ?  For  he  is  like  a  refiner's  fire,  and  like  ful- 
ler's soap.  And  he  shall  sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier 
(katharizon)  of  silver  :  and  he  shall  purify  (katharisei), 
the  sons  of  Levi,  and  purge  them  as  gold  and  silver,  that 
they  may  offer  unto  the  Lord  an  offering  in  righteous- 
ness." 

To  these  prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah,  John  him- 
self had  particularly  called  their  attention    at  the  com- 


Baptizo  used  as  a  Rdigioiis  Term.  17 

mencement  of  his  public  ministry ;  and  this  too,  in  con- 
nection with  his  administration  of  baptism :  "  I,  indeed, 
BAPTIZE  you  with  water,  unto  repentance ;  but  he  that 
Cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  bear :  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire :  Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he 
will  thoroughly  PURGE  [diakathariei)  his  floor,  and  gather 
his  wheat  into  the  garner ;  but  he  will  burn  up  the  chaff 
with  unquenchable  tire."  (Matt.  iii.  11,  12.) 

Understanding  baptism  to  be  essentially  a  purification, 
how  natural  was  it,  for  the  Pharisees,  when  they  saw  John 
baptizing,  to  ask  the  question :  Art  thou  our  promised 
Messiah,  the  great  purifier  foretold  by  our  Prophets ;  He, 
who  at  his  coming,  will  separate  us  from  among  our  ene- 
mies, that  "dwelling  in  the  land  given  to  our  fathers,"  we 
may  serve  him  ?  And  when  he  answered,  No ;  how 
natural  was  it  for  them  to  ask  the  further  question :  Art 
thou  Elias,  the  "  messenger  who  should  prepare  the  way 
before  "  Messiah  ?  And  when,  again,  he  answered.  No  : 
how  perfectly  natural  their  surprise ;  a  surprise  which 
finds  expression  in  their  last  question :  "  Why  baptizest 
thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither 
that  Prophet?  "  On  this  supposition,  not  only  is  the  con- 
duct of  the  Pharisees  natural ;  but  every  part  of  the  record 
is  perfectly  plain.  But  adopt  the  Baptist  hypothesis,  that 
baptism  was  an  entirely  new  rite,  of  the  nature  of  which 
the  Jews  knew  nothing,  except  what  they  could  gather 
from  its  being  an  immersion  (for  John  gave  no  exposition 
of  the  nature  of  baptism,  in  so  far  as  appears  from  the 
Gospel  narrative),  and  how  inexplicable  the  question  of 
the  Pharisees  appears. 

§  7.  John's  Silence  Respecting  the  Nature  of  Baptism 
Significant. 

In  so  far  as  appears  from  the  sacred  record,  neither 
John  nor  Christ  ever  gave  any  special  exposition  of  the 
nature  of  baptism,  unless  we  regard  our  Lord's  parting 
words  to  his  disciples  (Mark  xvi.  16),  after  his  resurrec- 
tion as  such.  .  Certain  it  is,  that  we  have  not  the  slightest 


18  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms:' 

hint  of  any  explanation  of  its  nature  having  been  given  by 
them,  at  the  time  these  Pharisees  came  to  John,  and  ques- 
tioned him  in  the  manner  related  in  John  i.  19-25.  And 
yet,  both  John  and  the  Pharisees  talk  about  baptism  as  if 
it  were  a  rite,  the  nature  of  which  was  well  understood  by 
all  parties.  And  in  just  the  same  unquestioning  manner 
had  "  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan,"  already  been  "  baptized  of  John,  in  Jor- 
dan, confessing  their  sins."  (Matt.  iii.  5,  6.)  How  strange 
does  all  this  seem,  on  the  supposition  that  baptism  ^as  a 
new  rite,  then,  for  the  first  time,  administered  in  Judea. 

Some  have  attempted  to  explain  this,  by  saying  that 
the  Jews  had  been  familiarized  with  baptism  as  a  religious 
rite,  by  their  established  rite  of  proselyte  baptism ;  and 
therefore,  no  question  is  asked,  nor  answer  given,  respect- 
ing its  nature  in  John's  day.  The  existence  of  the  rite  of 
proselyte  baptism  among  the  Jews,  in  John's  day,  rests 
upon  no  higher  authority  than  the  Talmud,  a  part  of 
which  was  not  written  until  the  seventh  century,  and  the 
remainder  still  later  :  and  the  fact  that  the  law  of  Moses 
prescribes  a  different  rite  for  the  admission  of  a  proselyte 
into  the  Jewish  Church,  renders  its  practice  then  exceed- 
ingly improbable.^  "  And  when  a  stranger  shall  sojourn 
with  thee,  and  will  keep  the  passover  of  the  Lord,  let  all 
his  males  be  circumcised,  and  then  let  him  come  near  and 
keep  it ;  and  he  shall  be  as  one  that  is  born  in  the  land; 
for  no  uncircumcised  person  shall  eat  thereof."  (Exodus 
xii.  48.) 

Others  would  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  by  supposing  that 
John  did  give  an  exposition  of  the  nature  of  baptism,  al- 
though no  record  is  made  of  it  in  the  Gospels.  Eespect- 
ing  this  supposition,  we  remark  :  1.  It  seems  passing 
strange  that  such  should  have  been  the  course  pursued 
by  the  Evangelists,  in  the  case  of  a  sacred  rite  entirely 
new;  and  such,  most  Baptist  writers  contend  that  this 
rite  is ;  when  in  the  case  of  the  only  other  sacrament  in- 
stituted in  the  Church,  viz.,  the  Lord's  Supper,  confessedly 

*  For  a  fuller  examination  of  this  question  respecting  proselyte  bap- 
tism, the  reader  is  referred  to  Jennings  Jewish  Antiquities,  Book  I. 
chap.  3. 


Joha's  Siloicc  rcffpectitig  Baptism.  10 

only  the  Gospel  counterpart  of  the  Paschal  Supper,  ob- 
served from  the  days  of  Moses,  they  are  so  particular  in 
recording  our  Lord's  exposition  of  its  nature.  "  And  ho 
took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it 
unto  them,  saying,  this  is  my  body  which  is  given  for 
you ;  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise,  also,  the 
cup,  after  supper,  saying,  tliis  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in 
my  blood,  which  is  shed  for  you."  (Luke  xxii.  19,  20.) 
See  also  Matt.  xxvi.  26-30,  and  Mark  xiv.  22-25.  2.  It 
is  at  variance  with  the  soundest  principles  of  biblical  criti- 
cism, to  explain  a  difficulty,  by  supposing  something  of 
which  the  Scriptures  give  us  no  hint,  when  it  can  be  as 
well,  or  better,  explained  from  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves. Even  in  the  best  view  which  we  can  take  of  such 
a  course,  it  is  preferring  an  apocryphal  explanation  to  a 
scriptural  one. 

In  this  fact,  then,  that  in  the  Gospel  narrative,  baptism 
breaks  upon  us  as  an  unquestioned,  and  evidently,  a  well- 
understood  rite,  we  have  very  strong  confirmation  of  the 
view  we  have  taken :  That  baptism  is  substantially  the 
same  with  the  purifications  established  under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament dispensation. 

A  further  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  view  we  shall 
have,  when  we  come  to  examine  particularly  the  nature  of 
John's  baptism ;  a  Jewish,  and  not  a  Christian  baptism  ; 
and  performed,  whilst  as  yet  the  Old  Testament  dispen- 
sation had  not  passed  away. 


20  The,  Doctrine  of  Baptisms, 


CHAPTER    III. 

MOSAIC   LAWS   OF   PUEIFICATION. 

§8.  Ritea  of  personal  Purification.  ?9.  Rites  of  Purification  for  inanimate  Things. 
g  10.  Purification  by  bathing  and  washing,  g  11.  Effects  of  Purification,  g  12. 
Definition  of  the  Term  purify  (katharizo).  g  13.  Definition  of  the  Term  bap- 
tize [baptizo,)  as  used  in  the  Word  of  God. 

In  our  examination  of  Jno.  iii.  25,  26,  and  i.  19-25,  hav- 
ing seen  good  reason  to  believe  that  John  and  his  disci- 
ples, and  the  Jews,  considered  John's  baptism  as  essen- 
tially a  rite  of  purification,  we  propose,  in  the  present 
chapter,  to  give  a  summary  of  the  Old  Testament  law  of 
purification ;  that  we  may  be  prepared  the  more  intelli- 
gently, to  examine  into  the  use  of  the  word  baptizo  by  the 
sacred  writers. 

The  Mosaic  law  of  purification  is  embraced  in  the  fol- 
lowing passages,  viz.(Ex.  xxx.  17-21.)  The  rites  of  puri- 
fication for  a  priest  about  to  engage  in  the  services  of  the 
sanctuary.  (Lev.  xi.  31-46.)  The  rites  of  purification  for 
any  person  or  thing  defiled  by  the  touch  of  an  unclean 
animal  or  creeping  thing.  (Lev.  xii.)  The  rites  of  purifi- 
cation for  a  woman  after  childbirth,  (Lev.  xiv.)  The 
rites  of  purification  for  the  leper.  (Lev.  xv.)  The  rites 
of  purification  for  those  having  issues,  &c.  (Lev.  xvii. 
15,  16.)  The  rites  of  purification  for  one  who  had  eaten 
that  which  died  of  itself  (Numb,  xix.)  The  rites  of  pu- 
rification for  one  who  had  touched  a  dead  body,  or  a  bone, 
or  a  grave.  (Numb.  xxxi.  19-24.)  The  rites  of  purifica- 
tion for  soldiers  after  battle,  and  for  spoils  taken  in  battle. 
In  Heb.  ix.  19-22,  Paul  gives  a  brief  summary  of  the  rites 
of  purification  for  the  "  tabernacle  and  all  the  vessels  cf 
the  ministry,"  written  out  more  at  large  in  various  places 
in  the  books  of  Exodus  and  Leviticus. 


Mosaic  Laws  of  Purification.  21 

After  a  careful  examination,  we  present  the  following, 
as  a  correct  summary  of  the  Mosaic  law  of  purification. 

§  8.  Rites  of  personal  Purification. 

1.  For  a  slight  defilement;  such  as  that  arising  from 
the  touch  of  an  unclean  animal ;  the  washing  of  the  clothes 
alone.  (Lev.  xi.  23.)  For  defilement  resulting  from  eat- 
ing an  animal  which  had  died  of  itself ;  or  from  having  a 
running  issue;  or  from  sprinkling  with  the  "water  of 
separation"  an  unclean  person  or  tent;  the  washing  of 
the  clothes,  and  the  bathing  of  the  body  in  water.  (Lev. 
XV.  8,  xvii.  15,  xix.  19.)  For  such  defilement  as  a  priest 
would  acquire  in  the  routine  of  every-day  life ;  the  wash- 
ing of  the  hands  and  the  feet.     (Exod.  xxx.  19.) 

2,  For  more  serious  defilement ;  such  as  that  contracted 
in  childbirth  ;  the  offering  of  a  prescribed  sacrifice.  (Lev. 
xii.  6,  7.)  For  defilement  arising  fi-om  touching  a  dead 
body,  or  bone,  or  grave ;  sprinkling  with  the  "  water  of 
separation,"  or  "  the  ashes  of  an  heifer."  (Numb.  xix.  17, 
18.)  For  defilement  arising  from  leprosy ;  sprinkling 
with  blood  and  water  seven  times,  the  touching  of  certain 
parts  of  the  body  with  blood  and  oil,  the  offering  of  cer- 
tain prescribed  sacrifices,  the  shaving  of  the  head  and  the 
face,  and  the  washing  of  the  person  and  clothes  in  water. 
(Lev.  xiv.  2-32.) 

§  9.  Pites  of  Purification  for  iiianimate  Things. 

For  clothing,  skins,  sacks  and  culinary  vessels  of  wood, 
purification  was  effected  by  washing,  rinsing,  or  dipping 
in  water.  (Lev.  xv.  12 — 17,  and  xi.  32.)  The  purifica- 
tion of  tents,  houses,  and  all  ordinary  household  furniture, 
was  by  sprinkling  with  "  the  water  of  separation."  (Numb. 
xix.  18.)  Gold  and  all  that  would  abide  the  fire,  when 
taken  as  spoils  in  battle,  was  purified  by  passing  through 
the  fire,  and  then  spiiiikling  with  "the  water  of  separa- 
tion." (Numb.  xxxi.  22,  23.)  Altars,  the  Tabernacle, 
and  "  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry,"  were  purified  by 
sprinkling  with  blood.     (Heb.  ix.  21,  22.) 


22  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

§10.    The  Bathings  and  Washings  required  hy  the  Law. 

On  the  subject  of  the  bathings  and  washings  required 
by  the  law  of  Moses,  we  remark : 

1.  The  words  used  in  the  Hebrew,  and  in  the  Greek  of 
the  Septuagint,  and  translated  in  our  English  version  by 
the  words  bathe  and  wash,  are,  confessedly,  words  having 
no  reference  to  mode ;  and,  therefore,  are  properly  trans- 
lated in  our  English  version.  la  Lev.  xv.  5,  both  of  these 
words  occur.  "  And  whosoever  shall  touch  his  bed,  shall 
wash  (Sept.  plunei)  his  clothes,  and  bathe  (Sept.  lousetai) 
himself  in  water."  In  the  "  New  Version,"  the  first  of 
these  words  is  translated  wash  in  Rev.  vii.  14.  "  And 
they  washed  their  robes ;"  and  the  other  is  translated 
wash  also,  in  Rev.  i.  5.  "  And  washed  us  from  our  sins." 
The  Greek  language  has  the  word  kataduno,  correspond- 
ing exactly  to  our  word  immerse ;  and  the  word  bapto, 
meaning  to  dip  (although  this  is  not  its  only  meaning), 
and  the  last  mentioned  of  these  words  is  frequently  used 
in  the  Septuagint,  in  the  sense  of  dip;  and  this  in  tho 
very  passages  in  which  the  bathing  of  the  body  is  pre- 
Bcribed  (e.g.  Lev.  xix.  18,  19,  "And  he  shall  take  hyssop, 
and  dip  (bapsei)  it  in  water,"  &c.) ;  and  yet,  in  no  instance 
is  either  of  these  words  used  to  designate  the  bathings 
enjoined ;  but  instead  thereof,  we  have  general  terms, 
translated  even  in  the  "Now  Version"  by  our  word  wash. 

2.  The  oriental  manner  of  washing  the  hands  and  feet, 
at  the  present  day,  is  not  by  putting  them  in  water,  but  by 
pouring  water  upon  them ;  and  this  has  been  the  custom, 
in  eastern  countries,  as  far  back  as  the  days  of  Elijah;  as 
we  learn  from  2  Kings,  iii.  11,  where  Elijah's  attendant 
is  spoken  of  as  "  Elisha,  the  son  of  Shaphat,  who  poured 
water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah."  The  oriental  method  of 
bathing,  at  the  present  day,  is  not  by  immersing  the 
body  in  the  water  of  the  bath,  but  by  having  the  water 
thrown  upon  the  body  by  an  attendant,  as  all  travellers 
tell  us. 

3.  A  fundamental  principle  in  the  Mosaic  law  of  puri- 
fication, viz.:  the  principle  of  defilement  by  contact, 
would  forbid  bathing  by  immersion,  v/hen  performed  for 


Bathiags  and    Washings.  23 

purposes  of  purification,  unless  that  bathing  were  in  run- 
ning water. 

Tliis  principle  of  defilement  by  contact  runs  all  through 
the  Mosaic  law.  In  the  case  of  "  the  water  of  separa- 
tion," for  example,  the  priest  who  presided  at  the  slaugh- 
ter and  burning  of  the  heifer,  and  the  person  who  per- 
formed a  part  of  the  labor  under  the  priest's  direction, 
were  both  rendered  unclean,  by  touching  the  heifer.  The 
"  clean  person  "  who  gathered  the  ashes  of  the  heifer,  was 
rendered  unclean  by  their  touch.  The  person  who  after- 
wards sprinkled  the  one  to  be  cleansed  by  these  ashes, 
was  rendered  unclean  by  the  act.  And  any  one  even 
touching  "  the  water  of  separation  "  was  thereby  defiled. 
See  Numb.  xix.  That  the  reader  may  see  how  far  this 
principle  was  carried,  let  him  read  attentively  Lev.  xi. 
33,  34.  "  xind  every  earthen  vessel  wherein  any  of 
them  "  (i.  e.,  unclean  animal  or  creeping  thing),  "  falleth, 
whatsoever  is  in  it,  shall  be  unclean ;  and  ye  shall  break 
it.  Of  all  meat  which  may  be  eaten,  that  on  which  such 
water"  (i.e.,  water  contained  in  a  vessel  defiled  by  the 
touch  of  an  unclean  animal  or  creeping  thing),  "  cometh, 
shall  be  unclean ;  and  all  drink  that  may  be  drunk  in 
any  such  vessel,  shall  be  unclean;"  the  only  exception 
made  being  in  the  case  of  "  a  fountain  or  pit,  wherein  was 
plenty  of  water."  Ver.  36.  Upon  the  Mosaic  principle  of 
defilement  by  contact,  had  a  person  bathed  by  immer- 
sion, or  washed  his  hands  by  dipping  them  in  any  ordi- 
nary household  water-vessel  or  l)ath,  or  even  cistern,  he 
would  thereby  have  defiled  the  whole  body  of  water,  and 
the  vessel  which  contained  it;  and  these,  in  their  turn, 
unless  first  purified,  would  have  defiled  any  water  which 
might  subsequently  have  been  put  in  them.  And  thus, 
one  such  bathing  would  have  rendered  a  long  scries  of 
cleansing  acts,  to  be  subsequently  performed,  absolutely 
necessary. 

For  these  three  reasons  we  conclude ;  not  simply  that 
there  is  no  evidence  that  personal  purifications  were  ever 
effected  by  immersion ;  we  go  further  than  this,  and 
affirm  that  the  Scriptures  give  us  good  reason  to  believe 
that  immersion  was  never  resorted  to  for  such  a  pur|;)Ose. 


24  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

The  only  instance  in  which  immersion  may  have  been 
resorted  to,  was  in  the  purification  of  certain  inanimate 
tilings,  such  as  "  raiment,  skins,  sacks,  and  culinary  ves- 
sels of  wood."  Of  these,  it  is  said  in  Lev.  xi.  32,  "  They 
must  be  put  in  water."  (Sept.  haphasetai)  Tlie  quantity 
of  water  defiled  in  immersing  such  things  would  be  small, 
and  the  Mosaic  law,  in  its  principles,  might  be  observed 
without  great  inconvenience. 

§  11.    The  Effect  of  Purification. 

An  unclean  person,  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  was, 
in  all  circumstances,  excluded  from  participation  in  the 
public  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  from  all  intimate  associa- 
tion with  God's  people.  If  the  uncleanness  were  not  of  a 
serious  kind,  it  did  not  exclude  a  person  from  all  associa- 
tion with  the  clean ;  but  only  such  intimate  association 
as  is  involved  in  eating  together.  (Acts  x.  28.)  But  if 
the  uncleanness  were  such  as  that  resulting  from  touching 
a  dead  body  slain  in  battle,  or  from  the  leprosy,  it  ex- 
cluded the  person  from  the  camp  or  city  where  his  breth- 
ren were.  (Numb.  xxxi.  34,  Lev.  xiii.  45,  46.)  In  all 
instances,  even  those  of  slightest  uncleanness,  the  unclean 
person  was  strictly  excluded  from  the  sanctuary;  and 
this,  in  certain  cases,  under  penalty  of  death.  (Lev. 
xii.  4;  Numb.  xix.  20;  Ex.  xxx.  21;  Acts  xxi.  27-29.) 
Purification  removed  these  restrictions,  and  admitted 
the  purified  person  to  unrestrained  association  with  God's 
people,  and  gave  him  access  to  the  solemn,  public  worship 
of  Jehovah. 

An  unclean  thing  could  not  be  used  in  the  service  of 
the  sanctuary ;  nor  by  a  clean  person,  in  the  ordinary 
business  of  life.     Purification  removed  these  restrictions. 

The  rites  of  purification  prescribed  in  the  law  of  Moses 
had  a  reference  to  the  state  and  condition  of  things  then 
existing,  and  an  immediate  effect  upon  the  person  receiv- 
ing them,  in  admitting  that  person  to  unrestrained  asso- 
ciation with  God's  people,  and  to  participation  in  the 
public  worship  of  Jehovah.  Besides  this — they  were  all 
typical,  exhibiting  spiritual  truth  in  a  visible  form,  as  we 


Effect  of  Purification.  25 

are  most  clearly  taught  in  the  word  of  God ;  and  thus 
they  formed  a  homogeneous  part  of  the  system  of  worship 
established  in  Moses'  day,  which  was  "a  shadow  of  good 
things  to  come."  As  in  uncleanness,  and  its  consequence, 
in  excluding  the  unclean  person  from  association  with 
God's  people,  and  all  part  in  his  public  worship,  we  have 
symbolized  sin  in  its  fearful  consequences;  so  in  purifi- 
cation, and  its  visible  effect,  we  have  symbolized  the  re- 
moval of  guilt  and  the  blessed  consequences  flowing 
therefrom. 


§  12.  Definition  of  the  word  Purify  (katharizo). 

"With  this  summary  of  the  Mosaic  law  of  purification 
before  us,  we  give  as  a  definition  of  the  word  purify,  as 
used  in  Scripture  : — • 

1.  To  j)urify  is  to  administer  a  prescribed  rite,  by 
which  a  person,  before  excluded  from  association  with 
God's  people  and  the  worship  of  the  sanctuary,  is  publicly 
declared  to  be  re-admitted  to  association  with  the  one 
and  participation  in  the  other.  This  may  be  called  the 
technic  sense  of  the  word.  Ex.  "  And  the  Levites  were 
purified  "  (i.  e.  had  the  rite  of  purification  administered  to 
them), '"and  they  washed  their  garments,  and  Aaron 
offered  them  as  an  oflTering  unto  the  Lord."  (Numb, 
viii.  21.) 

2.  To  purify  is  visibly  to  separate  unto  God's  service. 
This  we  would  call  the  literal  sense  of  the  term.  Ex. 
"And  the  priest  shall  offer  it  before  the  Lord,  and  make 
an  atonement  for  her,  and  she  shall  be  cleansed''  {purified. 
— i.  e.,  the  restriction  arising  from  the  issue  of  her  blood 
shall  be  removed,  and  she  visibly  separated  unto  God's 
service)  "  from  the  issue  of  her  blood."  (Lev.  xii.  7.) 

These  two  uses  of  the  word  purify  may  be  illustrated 
by  our  use  of  the  analogous  word  inaugurate.  We  may 
say  that  the  delivering  of  the  ke^'s  and  a  Bible  are  a  part 
of  the  inauguration  of  the  president  of  a  college — meaning 
by  the  inauguration,  the  rite  by  which  a  new  president  is 
inducted  into  office.  Or,  using  the  term  in  what  we  have 
2 


26  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

called  a  literal  sense,  we  may  say,  that  a  president  of  a 
certain  college  was  inaugurated  under  very  favorable  cir- 
cumstances— meaning  thereby  that  he  was  inducted  into 
office  under  very  favorable  circumstances. 

3.  Since  the  purifying  rites  of  the  law  symbolized  the 
removal  of  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin,  the  word  purify 
naturally  came  to  be  used  in  what  we  would  call  its 
spiritual  sense,  the  name  of  the  symbol  being  put  for  that 
of  the  thing  symbolized.  When  thus  used,  it  means  re- 
generate, sanctity.  Ex.  "  x\nd  he  shall  purify  (i.  e.  sanc- 
tify) the  sons  of  Levi,  that  they  may  offer  unto  the 
Lord  an  offering  in  righteousness."  (Mai.  iii.  3.)  This  is 
much  the  most  common  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Ex.  "  And  put  no  difference  between  us  and 
them,  pitrifying "  (i.  e.  sanctifying)  "  their  hearts  by 
faith."  (Acts  xv.  9.) 

Which  of  these  three  senses  belongs  to  the  word  purify, 
in  any  particular  passage  of  Scripture,  must  be  deter- 
mined by  an  examination  of  the  context ;  and,  as  a  general 
thing,  the  Bible  student  will  find  but  little  difficulty  in 
thus  determining  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  each  par- 
ticular passage. 

§  13.  Definition  of  Baptize  {baptize). 

As  already  intimated,  we  believe  that  the  word  bap- 
Tizo,  when  used  as  a  religious  term,  is  used  in  the  Woi-d 
of  God,  as  substantially  the  same  in  meaning  with  the 
word  Katharizo.     And  hence  we  would  define  it : — 

1.  To  mean  the  administration  of  a  rite,  whereby  a  per- 
son is  admitted  to  association  with  God's  people.  This  we 
call  its  technie  sense. 

2.  To  mean  the  visible  separation  of  the  baptized 
person  from  the  world,  and  into  association  with  God's 
people.  This  we  call  its  literal  sense.  In  this  sense 
its  meaning  is  very  nearly  the  same  with  the  word  con- 
secrate. 

3.  To  mean  regenerate,  sanctify.  This  we  call  its  spir- 
itual sense. 

And  we  add — that  as  in  the  case  of  the  word  purify,  we 


Effect  of  Purification.  27 

must  determine  which  of  these  senses  belongs  to  it,  in  any 
particular  passage  of  Scripture,  by  an  examination  of  the 
context. 

Note. — That  we  may  avoid  the  constantly  repeated  introduction  of 
the  word  baptizo,  in  tno  following  pages,  the  use  of  this  word  in  the 
original  will  be  indicated  by  printing  the  corresponding  words  in  small 
capitals — baptizk,  baptism.  The  same  rule  will  be  observed  with  re- 
spect to  the  word    Katharizo,  translated  in  our  English  Bible  by  the 

words  PURIFY,  CLEANaK,  PURGE. 


28  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms, 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EXAMINATION   OF   THE   USE   OF   BAPTIZO,    IN   THE   SEPTUA- 
GINT   VERSION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

§14.  II.  Kings,  V.  14.    g  15.  Eeclesiasticus,  xxxiv.  25.    g  16.   Judith,  xii.  7.     g  IT. 
Isaiah,  xxi.  4. 

The  word  baptizo  is  used  four  times  in  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  it  is  in  this  version  we 
first  meet  with  the  Hellenistic  Greek,  or  Greek  of  the 
Synagogue,  the  peculiar  idiom  in  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  written,  we  will  examine  these  instances  before 
turning  to  the  New  Testament  itself. 

§  14.  II.  Kings,  v.    14. 

"  And  his  (i.  e.  Naaman's)  servants  came  near  and 
spake  unto  him,  and  said :  My  father,  if  the  prophet  had 
bid  thee  do  some  great  thing,  wouldst  thou  not  have  done 
it  ?  how  much  rather  then,  when  he  saith  to  thee.  Wash, 
and  be  clean."  (v.  13.)  "  Then  went  he  down  and  dipped 
(baptized)  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan,  according  to 
the  saying  of  the  man  of  God ;  and  his  flesh  came  again 
like  unto  the  flesh  of  a  little  child,  and  he  was  clean." 
(v.  14.) 

That  this  washing  here  enjoined  was  considered,  both 
by  Elisha  and  Naaman,  as  a  religious  washing  or  purifi- 
cation, and  is  so  set  forth  in  the  context,  appears  from 
several  considerations. 

1.  The  cure  sought  was  expected,  not  from  any  medici- 
nal action  of  the  waters  of  the  Jordan,  but  from  a  direct 
exercise  of  divine  power.     Hence  Elisha's  language,  in  his 


Baptizo  1)1  the  Old  Testament.  29 

message  to  tlic  king  of  Israel, — "  Let  liini  come  now  unto 
me,  and  he  shall  know  that  there  is  a  prophet "  (not  a 
physician)  "  in  Israel,"  (v.  8.)  And  hence,  too,  Naaman's 
language,  when  he  turned  away  in  a  rage  :  "  Behold,  I 
thouglit,  he  will  surely  come  out  to  me,  and  stand  and 
call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  and  strike  his  hand 
over  the  place,  and  recover  the  leper,"  (v.  11.)  It  will 
not  appear  strange  that  Naaman,  although  a  Syrian  and 
not  an  Israelite,  should  thus  have  understood  this  matter, 
if  we  call  to  mind  the  fact  that  religious  washings  or  puri- 
fications were  not  peculiar  to  the  Israelites,  but  formed  a 
part  of  the  ritual  worship  of  almost  all  ancient  nations ; 
as  they  do  of  many  heathen  nations  at  the  present  day. 
To  bathe  in  the  sacred  waters  of  the  Ganges  is  one  of  the 
highest  acts  of  devotion  which  the  Hindoo  can  perform ; 
and  of  the  existence  of  similar  notions  at  a  very  early  day, 
we  have  a  proof  in  the  washing  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  at 
the  Nile,  "  not  for  pleasure,  but  for  purification,"  as  Bish- 
op Patrick  remarks.     (See  Exod.  ii.  5.) 

2.  Elisha  promises  to  Naaman,  on  condition  of  obedi- 
ence, not  healing  only,  but  cleansing  also.  "  Go  and  wash 
in  Jordan  seven  times,  and  thy  flesh  shall  come  again  to 
thee"  (here  is  the  promise  of  healing),  ''and  thou  shalt  be 
CLEAN,"  (here  is  the  promise  of  cleansing  also.)  And  in  the 
subsequent  account  of  Naaman's  obedience,  and  its  conse- 
quences, we  read,  "  And  his  flesh  came  again,  like  unto 
the  flesh  of  a  little  child"  (here  was  the  healing),  "and  he 
was  CLEAN,"  or  CLEANSED  (here  was  the  cleansing  also). 
And  let  the  reader  notice,  that  the  word  translated,  clean, 
is,  in  both  instances,  the  word  commonly  used  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  to  designate  the  cleansings,  or  purifications  enjoined 
m  the  law  of  Moses. 

3.  After  the  cure  of  his  leprosy  is  effected,  Naaman 
treats  his  washing  in  Jordan  as  a  cleansing  or  purifica- 
tion, i.  e.  a  separation  unto  the  worship  of  Jehovah  the 
God  of  Israel,  by  the  direction  of  whose  Prophet,  and  in 
the  river  of  the  land  of  whose  peculiar  people,  the  wash- 
ing had  been  performed.  "  And  he  (Naaman)  said,  Be- 
hold, now  I  know  that  there  is  no  God  in  all  the  earth  but 
in  Israel ;  thy  servant  will  henceforth  offer  neither  burnt- 


30  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

offering  nor  sacrifice  unto  other  gods,  but  unto  the  Lord." 
(Verses  15-17.) 

Admitting  now,  that  the  word  used  in  the  original  He- 
brew, the  inspired  text,  is  a  word  which  means  to  dip  (al- 
though this  is  not  its  only  meaning,  since  in  Gen.  xxxvii. 
31,  the  seventy  translate  it  by  moluno,  which  never 
means  to  dip,  but  "  to  soil,  to  stain,  to  defile  ")  the  ques- 
tion comes  up,  why  did  the  seventy,  in  their  rendering  of 
the  passage  under  examination,  translate  it  by  the  word 
haptizo  ?  The  Baptist  answers — Because  Naaman's  wash- 
ing was  a  dipping  in  Jordan,  and  baptize  was  the  proper 
word  to  convey  this  idea.  We  answer,  because  they  re- 
garded it  as  a  religious  washing,  and  they  meant  so  to 
designate  it  by  styling  it  a  baptism. 

Our  answer  is,  we  think,  the  more  probable  one,  for  two 
reasons  :  1.  The  religious  character  of  Naaman's  washing 
is  prominently  set  forth  in  the  context,  whilst  its  charac- 
ter as  an  immersion  (if  he  did  dip  himself  in  Jordan,)  is  left 
to  be  inferred  from  the  one  fact  that  it  was  performed  in 
or  at  the  Jordan.  2,  This  is  the  only  instance  in  which 
the  Hebrew  word,  here  translated  by  baptizo,  is  used  to 
designate  a  religious  washing  or  purification;  and  it  is 
the  only  instance  in  which  the  seventy  have  translated  it 
by  baptizo.  It  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  text,  in  Gen.  xxxvii. 
31 ;  Exod.  xii.  22 ;  Lev.  ix.  9 ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  24 ;  Euth,  ii. 
14 ;  2  Kings,  viii.  15,  in  the  sense  of  dip  or  stain,  and  in 
none  of  these  instances  is  it  translated  by  baptizo. 

What  weight  ought  to  be  given  to  Dr.  Carson's  frivo- 
lous objection,  that  "  if  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  purilH?-, 
then  there  would  be  seven  purifications,"  ^  the  reader  will 
learn,  by  turning  to  Lev.  xiv.,  where  in  the  process  for 
cleansing  the  leper,  he  is  at  three  different  stages  of  his 
cleansing  pronounced  clean  by  the  priest,  vs.  7,  9  and  20 ; 
or  from  Dr.  Carson's  own  use  of  the  word  baptism,  by 
which  he  understands  immersion,  and  immersion  only, 
when  speaking  of  the  "  trine-immersion  "  practised  in  the 
Greek  church ;  the  three  immersions  constituting  but  one 
baptism  (i.  e.  immersion  according  to  Dr.  C). 

^  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  316. 


Baptizo  in  the  Old  Testavient.  31 

§  15.  JEcdcsiasticus,      xxxiv.     25. 

"He  that  washoth  (baptizeih,  ^c\).)  himself  after  the' 
touching  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  avail- 
eth  his  washing?  " 

That  the  cleansing  rite  here  referred  to,  and  styled  a 
BAPTISM  in  the  Soptuagint,  is  the  rite  prescribed  in  the 
19th  chapter  of  Numbers,  is  conceded  on  all  hands.  The 
cleansing  of  a  person  who  had  become  defiled  by  touching 
a  dead  body,  was  eifected  by  one  rite,  and  one  only,  viz.  : 
"sprinkling  upon  him  the  water  of  separation."  "  Whoso 
toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man  that  is  dead,  and  PU- 
EiFiETH  not  himself,  defileth  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord ; 
and  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel :  b(!cause  tJue 
water  of  separation  was  not  sjirinlded  upon  him,  he  shall 
be  unclean ;  his  uncleanness  is  yet  upon  him.  .  .  .  But  the 
man  that  shall  be  unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  himself, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the  congregation, 
because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord ;  the 
water  of  separation  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him; 
he  is  unclean."  Numb.  xix.  13,  20.  "  For  if  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling 
the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh." 
Heb.  ix.  13.  The  expressions  "  ashes  of  a  heifer "  and 
"  water  of  separation,"  are  used  interchangeably  in  the 
Scriptures  to  designate  the  purifying  material  used  in  this 
rite.  An  instance  of  this  we  have  in  Numb.  xix.  9. 
"  And  a  man  that  is  clean  shall  gather  up  the  ashes  of  the 
heifer,  and  lay  them  up  without  the  camp  in  a  clean  place, 
and  it  shall  bo  kept  for  the  congregation  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  for  a  water  of  separation."  This  use  of  these  ex- 
pressions has  arisen,  doubtless,  from  the  fact  that  the 
ashes  of  the  heifer  was  the  essential  ingredient  in  "the 
water  of  separation,"  and  the  material  actually  sprinkled 
upon  the  person  to  be  cleansed. 

If  the  word  baptizo  "  always  signifies  to  dip,  never  ex- 
pressing anything  but  mode,"  we  ask  where  was  the  bap- 
tism here  ?  Dr.  Carson  writes  :  "  The  answer  must  be 
obvious  to  every  person  who  consults  Numb.  xix.  19, 
which  shows  that  sprinkling  was  but  a  part  of  that  purifi- 


32  The  Doctrine  qf  Baptisms. 

cation,  and  that  the  unclean  person  was  also  bathed  in 
water.     It  is  this  bathing  which  is  effected  by  baptism."  ^ 

Numb.  xix.  19  reads :  "  And  the  dean  person  shall 
sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the 
seventh  day ;  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  him- 
self, and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and 
shall  be  clean  at  even."  Here  "he"  has  for  its  antece- 
dent, "  the  clean  person  who  shall  sprinkle  upon  the  U7i- 
clean."  This  which  appears,  even  in  our  English  version, 
is  seen  most  clearly  in  the  Septuagint,  and  is  placed  be- 
yond all  question  by  ver.  21,  which  is  an  explanatory  re- 
petition of  ver.  19,  just  as  ver.  20  is  of  ver.  13.  "And  it 
shall  be  a  perpetual  statute  unto  them,  that  he  that  sprin- 
kleth  the  water  of  separation  shall  wash  his  clothes ;  and  he 
that  toucheth  the  water  of  separation  shall  be  unclean  until 
even."  The  fact  that  he  is  spoken  of,  in  ver.  19,  as  a 
"  clean  person,"  is  not  at  variance  with  this  idea,  since  he 
became  unclean  by  the  operation  of  sprinkling.  His  case 
is  just  like  that  of  the  one  who  gathered  "the  ashes  of  the 
heifer."  "  And  a  man  that  is  clean  shall  gather  the  ashes 
of  the  heifer;  and  he  that  gathereth  the  ashes  of  the  heifer 
shall  wash  his  clothes  and  be  unclean  until  even."  Vers. 
9,  10.  The  defilement  acquired  by  the  person  thus 
sprinkling  the  water  of  separation,  as  also  that  acquired 
in  gathering  the  ashes  of  the  heifer,  was  but  a  slight  de- 
filement, and,  therefore,  was  purged  away,  by  bathing  the 
body  and  washing  the  cloth.es ;  the  rites  of  purification 
for  cases  of  slight  defilement.     (See  §  7.) 

Most  unfortunately,  then,  for  Dr.  Carson's  explanation, 
the  person  who  had  become  unclean  by  touching  a  dead 
body,  and  whose  purification  is  styled  a  baptism  in  the 
passage  under  examination,  was  not  the  person  directed 
to  bathe  himself  and  wash  his  clothes.  For  him,  there  is 
but  one  purifying  rite  prescribed,  and  that  is  sprinkling 
with  the  water  of  separation.  Here  then,  we  have  a  rite, 
to  which  the  name  of  a  baptism  is  given  in  the  Septuagint, 
which  was,  beyond  all  question,  a  purification  ;  and  in 
which,  according  to  the  express  declaration  of  Scripture, 

*  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  66. 


Baptizo  in  Ihc  Old  Testament.  33 

there  was  nothing  approaching  nearer  to  an  immersion 
than  spriyikling  with  the  water  of  separation. 

Note. — To  our  interpretation  of  this  passage  Dr.  Fairbairne  objects, 
that  "  the  latter  person  (i.  e.  the  person  who  sprinkled  upon  the 
unclean,  was  not  required  to  bathe  his  body  at  all;  (v.  21)  he  had  sim- 
ply to  wash  his  clothas.  And  if  he  had  been  meant  in  v.  19,  there 
could  have  been  no  propriety  in  laying  stress  on  the  seventh  day,  any 
more  than  on  the  third.'    {Hermeneutical  Manual,  p.  299.) 

To  this  we  reply  : — 

(1)  If  the  omission  to  mention  specifically  the  "  bathing  in  water  " 
once,  in  v.  21,  where  the  rite  of  cleansing  for  the  person  sprinkling  is 
prescribed,  proves  that  this  bathing  could  not  have  been  intended  for 
him, — does  not  the  omission  to  mention  it  three  times,  (see  vs.  13,  18, 
20),  where  the  rite  of  cleansing  for  the  person  sprinkled  upon,  prove 
yet  more  conclusively  that  it  could  not  have  been  meant  for  him!'— 
And  yet,  it  certainly  was  meant  for  one  or  other  of  the  two. 

(2)  Stress  is  laid  on  the  sevetith  day,  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  it 
was  not  until  the  seventh  day  the  defilement  of  the  person  sprinkling 
was  complete ;  and  under  Moses'  law  rites  of  cleansing  were  never  re- 
sorted to  until  the  defilement  they  were  intended  to  remove  was  com- 
plete. 

On  V.  19,  Bishop  Patrick — the  highest  authority,  on  such  points  as 
this,  among  our  modern  commentators,  has  this  note :  "  On  the  seventh 
day  he  shall  purify  himself,  &c.  This  seems  to  be  meant  of  the  clean 
person  who  sprinkled  the  unclean,  and  by  coming  near  them,  was  in 
some  sort  defiled.  But  he  was  not  to  be  purified  by  the  water  of  sepa- 
ration ;  but  only  by  washing  his  clothes  and  bathing  himself  in  water; 
and  his  uncleannsss  lasted  but  till  the  evening."  {PairicHs  Commentary.) 

Instance  of  the  use  of  the  word  baptizo  05  a  religious 
term  hy  Josephus. 

"  When,  therefore,  any  persons  were  defiled  by  a  dead 
hody,  they  put  a  Httle  of  these  ashes  "  (i.  e.,  the  ashes  of 
the  heifer)  "  into  spring  water,  witli  hyssop,  and  dipping 
(baptizing,  Josephus)  part  of  these  a.shes  in  it,  they 
sprinkled  with  it,  both  on  the  third  day  and  on  the 
seventh,  and  after  that  they  were  clean."  (Josephus'  An- 
tiquities of  th»  Jews,  book  iv.  chap.  4th,  "Whiston's  trans- 
lation.) 

This  instance  from  Josephus  is  the  only  one  cited  by 
Dr.  Carson,  in  which  the  word  baptizo  seems  to  be  used  as 
a  religious  term ;  and  v/e  direct  the  reader's  attention  to 
it,  in  connection  with  the  examination  of  Ecclesiasticus 
xxxiy.  25,  because  they  both  refer  to  the  same  cleansing 
9* 


34:  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

rite.  Josephus,  in  the  passage  under  examination,  is  evi- 
dently giving  a  summary  of  the  Mosaic  law  contained  in 
the  19th  chapter  of  Numbers. 

In  what  sense  does  Josephus  use  the  word  baptizo, 
v/hen  he  speaks  of  the.  ashes  as  being  baptized  in  the 
water  ?  Evidently  in  the  sense  of  dipping,  says  Dr.  Car- 
son; and  so  Whiston  has  translated  it.  To  this  we  object. 
The  ashes  are  already  described  as  "  put  into  the  spring 
water,"  in  the  member  of  the  sentence  immediately  pre- 
ceding this ;  and  to  translate  baptizo  here,  to  dip,  is  to 
make  one  member  of  the  sentence  a  mere  useless  repeti- 
tion of  the  other.  The  word  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of 
purify,  i.  e.,  set  apart  for  a  sacred  use ;  for  this  is  the 
sense  of  the  word  purify,  when  used  respecting  inanimate 
things.    (See  §  10.) 

As  a  substitute  for  the  awkward  (to  say  the  least  of  it) 
translation  of  Whiston,  we  would  render  it :  "  When, 
therefore,  any  jjersons  were  defiled  by  a  dead  body,  they 
put  a  little  of  the  ashes  to  spring  water,  and  thus  (bap- 
tizing) setting  them  apart  to  a  sacred  use,  with  hyssop, 
they  sprinkle  the  unclean  person  with  them  on  the  third 
day,  and  also  on  the  seventh  day;  and  after  that,  they 
are  clean." 

§  16.    Judith   xii.   7. 

Judith  xii.  7.  "  Then  the  servant  of  Holofernes  brought 
her  (Judith)  into  the  tent,  and  she  slept  till  mid- 
night, and  she  arose  when  it  was  toward  the  morning 
watch ;  And  sent  to  Holofernes,  saying,  let  my  lord 
now  command,  that  thine  handmaid  may  go  forth 
unto  prayer.  Then  Holofernes  commanded  his  guard, 
that  they  should  not  stay  her;  thus  she  abode  in  the 
camp  three  days,  and  went  out  in  the.night,  into  the 
valley  of  Bethulia,  and  washed  (baptized,  Sep.)  her- 
self in  a  fountain  of  water,  by  the  camp.  And  when 
she  came  out,  she  besought  the  Lord  God  of  Israel, 
to  direct  her  way  to  the  raising  up  of  the  children  of 
her  people.  So  she  came  in  clean,  and  remained  in 
her  tent,  until  she  did  eat  her  meat  in  the  evening. 


J]((pti:o  in  (he  Old  ToiianioU.  35 

That  this  washing  of  Judith,  here  styled  a  baptism,  was 
a  rehgious  washing  or  purilication,  appears  from  several 
considerations. 

1.  It  was  a  washing  performed  as  a  preparation  for 
prayer.  "And  she  sent  to  Holofernes,  saying,  let  my 
lord  now  command,  that  thine  handmaid  may  go  forth  to 
prayer.  And  when  she  came  ont,  she  besought  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel  to  direct  her  way  to  the  raising  up  of  the 
children  of  her  people."  It  is  true,  thrit  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  there  is  no  specific  rite  of  purification  prescribed 
as  a  preparation  for  prayer,  excepting  in  the  case  of  the 
priests,  "  when  they  came  near  to  the  altar  to  minister." 
(See  Exod.  xxx.  17-21.)  But  yet,  a  purification  in  pre- 
paration for  worship  was  practised  by  all,  long  before 
Moses'  day,  as  we  learn  from  Gen.  xxxv.  2.  "  Then  Jacob 
said  unto  his  household,  and  all  that  were  with  him :  Put 
away  the  strange  gods  that  are  among  you,  and  be  clean, 
and  change  your  garments."  This  direction  was  given 
by  Jacob,  when  about  to  go  up  with  his  family  to  Bethel, 
to  worship. 

2.  The  effect  of  this  washing  is  expressly  declared  to 
be  that  of  a  purification.  "  So  she  came  in  clean,  and 
remained  in  the  tent  until  she  did  eat  her  meat  at  even- 
ing." 

That  this  washing  of  Judith  was  performed  by  immer- 
sion, seems  altogether  improbable. 

1.  Because  even  the  priests,  when  they  were  about  to 
engage  in  a  more  solemn  act  of  worship ;  when  "  they 
came  near  to  the  altar  to  minister,"  were  required  to 
wash  their  hands  and  their  feet  only.  (See  Exod.  xxx, 
17-21.)  If  washing  the  hands  and  the  feet  would  sufiice 
to  remove  such  defilement  as  was  acquired  in  the  ordi- 
nary business  of  life  by  a  priest,  surely  no  more  would  be 
required  of  a  Jewish  maiden,  and  one  so  careful  to  avoid 
every  source  of  defilement,  as,  from  the  context,  Judith 
appears  to  have  been. 

2.  From  the  10th  verse  of  the  13th  chapter,  we  learn 
that  her  maid  accompanied  Judith,  when  she  thus  went 
forth  to  prayer.  "  And  she  gave  Holofernes'  head  to  her 
maid,  and  she  put  it  in  her  bag  of  meat;  so  they  twain 


36  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

went  together,  according  to  their  custom,  unto  pi-ayer." 
It  is  true  that  other  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  this ; 
but  the  one  most  naturally  suggested  by  the  Scriptures, 
is,  that  like  EHsha  with  his  master,  Elijah,  she  went  that 
she  might  "pour  water  "  upon  Judith's  hands. 

3.  Because  this  washing  was  performed  by  Judith,  "  in 
2i  fountain  of  water,  hy  the  camp,''  according  to  our  Eng- 
lish version.  Or  if  we  translate  literally  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  "  in  the  camp,  at  a  fountain  of  water."  Had  this 
record  formed  a  part  of  any  other  history,  these  facts 
alone,  that  the  washing  was  "  at  or  in  a  fountain,"  and 
"  in  or  near  to  "  a  large  military  encampment ;  and  per- 
formed, too,  by  a  modest  young  woman,  reared  with 
oriental  notions  of  propriety,  would,  we  doubt  not,  have 
forever  excluded  the  idea  of  immersion  from  the  mind  of 
every  reader.  And  all  that  Dr.  Carson  could  say  about 
the  water-troughs,  sometimes  placed  near  to  fountains,  in 
the  East ;  and  of  the  poetic  fancy  of  "  Castalian  nymphs 
bathing  themselves  in  fountains."  would  not  alter  that 
judgment  one  iota. 

§  17.    Isaiah   xxi.   4. 

"  My  heart  panted,  fearfulness  affrighted  me  (baptized 
me,  Sep.  ;  the  night  of  my  pleasure  hath  he  turned  into 
fear  unto  me." 

Our  English  version,  "fearfulness  affrighted  me,"  is  a 
literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew ;  so  that  the  version  of 
the  Seventy,  in  their  use  of  the  word  "baptized,"  must  be 
regarded  as  a  paraphrase  rather  than  a  translation  ;  and 
in  just  what  sense  they  did  use  it,  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine. Nor  is  it  of  any  importance  that  we  should  deter- 
mine its  meaning  here,  in  so  far  as  our  present  inquiry  is 
concerned  ;  since — 1,  "  The  language  of  the  whole  passage 
is  so  highly  figurative,  that  no  prudent  reasoner  would 
make  any  use  of  it  in  determining  the  literal  meaning  of 
a  word."  And  2,  The  word  is  here  evidently  used  as  a 
secular,  and  not  as  a  religious  term ;  and  it  is  its  use  as  a 
rehgious  term,  alone,  we  are  attempting  to  determine. 


Baptizo  ill  the  New  TestamciiL  37 


CHAPTER   V. 

APPLICATION    OF     haptizo,   IN     THE    NEW    TESTAMENT,    TO 
MOSAIC    PURIFICATIONS 

1 18.  Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38.    §  19.  Hebrews  ix.  10.    g  20.  Hebrews  vi.  2. 

In  the  New  Testament,  in  four  instances,  ritual  purifi- 
cation? prescribed  in  Moses'  law,  are  termed  baptisms. 
These  instances  we  purpose  examining  in  the  present 
chapter. 

§  18.    Mark   vii.   4. 

Mark  vii.  1-4.  "  Then  came  together  unto  him  the  Phari- 
sees, and  certain  of  the  Scribes,  which  came  from  Je- 
rusalem. And  when  they  saw  certain  of  his  disciples 
eat  bread  with  defiled  (that  is  to  say,  with  un- 
washen)  hands,  they  found  fault.  For  the  Pharisees, 
and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft, 
eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And 
when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash 
(baptize),  they  cat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
washing  (baptizing)  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen 
vessels,  and  tables." 

Luke  xi.  38,  39.  "  And  as  ho  spake,  a  certain  Pharisee 
besought  him  to  dine  with  him :  and  he  went  in  and 
sat  down  to  meat.  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it, 
he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed  (baptized) 
before  dinner." 


38  The  Doctrine  of  Baptiwis. 

These  two  passages  are  here  placed  together,  not  because 
they  are  parallel  passages,  for  the  incidents  they  record 
occurred  on  very  different  occasions ;  but  because  the  one 
will  serve  in  some  measure  to  explain  the  other. 

That  the  baptisms  here  spoken  of  were  regarded  by  all 
parties  as  ritual  cleansings,  is  evident  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  context.  Indeed,  no  writer  on  either  side,  in 
so  far  as  we  know,  has  ever  called  this  in  question.  The 
only  point  about  which  there  is  difference  of  opinion  is, 
whether  they  were  immersions  or  not.  And  let  the  read- 
er notice,  that  they  must  all  have  been  immersions,  in  or- 
der that  we  may  here  translate  the  word  baptizo  immerse, 
since  it  is,  in  these  passages,  applied  alike  to  all. 

First.  The  washing  of  hands  is  mentioned  among  these 
BAPTISMS  practised  by  the  Jews. 

That  the  washing  (baptism)  which  the  Pharisee  ex- 
pected from  our  Lord,  before  dinner,  as  recorded  in  Luke 
xi.  38,  was  simply  a  washing  of  the  hands,  is  placed  be- 
yond all  reasonable  question  by  Ltark  vii.  3,  "  For  the 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands 
oft,  eat  not." 

1.  The  washing  of  the  hands,  among  the  Jews,  from 
time  immemorial,  has  been  performed  by  pouring  water 
upon  them,  and  not  by  dipping  the  hands  in  water.  See 
2  Kings,  iii.  11. 

2.  A  further  proof  that  such  was  the  method  adopted  in 
our  Lord's  day,  where  purification  was  aimed  at,  we  have 
in  the  record  contained  in  John  ii.  6.  "And  there  were  set 
there  six  water  pots  of  stone,  after  the  onanner  of  the  puri- 
fying of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins  apiece." 
The  word  here  translated  ^''  water  pots''  is  the  same  word 
used  to  designate  the  vessel  brought  by  the  woman  of  Sa- 
maria to  Jacob's  well  (see  John  iv.  28),  and  is  the  word 
used  in  the  Septuagint,  where  our  version  uses  the  word 
pitcher,  in  Gen.  xxiv.  15 ;"  "  Behold  Rebekah  came  out, 
with  her  pitcher  upon  her  shoulder,"  and  in  Judges,  vii. 
14  :  "  And  he  put  a  trumpet  in  every  man's  hand,  with 
empty  pitchers,  and  lamps  within  the  pitchers."  Judg- 
ing from  the  use  to  which  these  water  pots  or   pitchers 


Baptizo  ill  the  Kcw  Testament.  39 

were  put,  viz.  that  of  carrying  water  from  the  well,  the 
pitcher  being  placed  "  upon  the  shoulder,"  we  have  every 
reason  to  suppose  that  they  were  of  like  form  with  those 
used  in  the  East  for  the  same  purpose  at  the  present  day 
— that  of  broad-mouthed  bottles,  rather  than  jars.  Now, 
such  vessels,  whilst  very  well  adapted  to  washing  the 
hands  or  feet  by  pouring,  are  not  at  all  suited  to  washing 
by  dipping  or  immersion. 

Their  size,  "  holding  two  or  three  firkins  apiece,"  may 
seem  to  be  at  variance  with  this  idea.  But  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind,  1,  That  on  this  occasion,  they  were  in- 
tended to  answer  the  demands  for  purification  of  the  large 
company  collected  at  a  wedding ;  when,  of  course,  pitch- 
ers of  the  largest  size  would  be  selected.  And  2,  that  the 
word  here  translated  firkins,  if  we  take  the  only  guide  we 
have  to  its  meaning  as  used  in  our  Lord's  day,  viz.  its  use 
in  the  Septuagint  (2  Chron.  iv.  5),  to  translate  the  He- 
brew word  bath,  must  be  understood  to  be  a  measure 
much  smaller  than  our  "  firkin,"  having  the  capacity  of 
only  about  one  cubi'^.  foot.  And  we  may  remark  that  this 
was  about  the  capacity  of  the  measure  to  which  the  Eng- 
lish name  "  firkin  "  was  applied,  at  the  time  our  English 
version  of  the  Bible  was  made.  A  pitcher,  of  the  capacity 
of  two  or  three  cubic  feet,  might  well  be  used  for  pouring 
water  upon  the  hands  of  guests  at  a  wedding,  but  would 
utterly  exclude  the  idea  of  the  immersion  of  the  persons 
of  those  guests,  as  some  Baptist  writers  have  imagined 
was  customary  among  the  Jews. 

Second.  Pots  and  brazen  vessels  are  mentioned  among 
the  things  baptized. 

According  to  the  law  of  Moses,  such  things  were  puri- 
fied, in  all  ordinary  instances,  by  sprinkling  them  with 
the  water  of  separation  ;  and  when  taken  as  spoils  of  war, 
by  passing  through  the  fire,  and  then  sprinkling  with  the 
water  of  separation.  (See  §  9.)  It  is  true,  that  the  bap- 
tisms here  spoken  of,  are  said  to  have  been  practised  in 
obedience  to  "  the  traditions  of  the  elders."  But  then,  it 
should  be  remarked — 1,  In  the  expression,  "  Except  they 
wash  their  hands  oft,"  we  have  a  clear  intimation  that  the 


40  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

addition  made  to  Moses'  law  by  the  elders,  was  in  the 
way  of  a  great  multiplication  of  the  washings,  and  not  in 
the  way  of  a  change  in  the  Mosaic  mode.  And  2,  That 
the  substitution  of  dipping  for  sprinkling  with  the  water 
of  separation,  i.  e.  the  substitution  of  the  less  for  the  more 
solemn  mode  (see  §  8),  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the 
course  of  superstition,  which  is  always  onward ;  and  also, 
at  variance  with  all  the  intimations  of  the  text. 

Third.  Tables  (klinon)  are  also  mentioned  among  the 
things  baptized. 

The  law  of  Moses  is  specific  respecting  the  purification 
of  household  furniture ;  and  according  to  that  law,  this  is 
to  be  effected  by  "  sprinkling  with  the  water  of  separa- 
tion." (See  §  9.) 

On  the  one  hand,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  law  had  been  departed  from,  in  this  particular ;  whilst 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  strong  improbability,  we 
might  say,  almost  an  impossibility,  from  the  size  and 
structure  of  these  tables,  that  they  should  have  been  pu- 
rified by  immersion.  If  we  follow  our  English  version, 
we  must  understand  these  tables  to  have  been  the  tables 
at  which  the  Jews  ate  their  meals.  Or,  if  we  translate 
the  word  klinon,  as  most  modern  scholars  do,  couches,  we 
must  understand  these  couches  to  have  been  those  on 
which  the  Jews  in  our  Lord's  day,  in  common  with  the 
Greeks  and  Eomans,  reclined  at  their  meals — such  as 
those  used  by  Christ  and  his  disciples  at  the  last  supper. 
These  couches  were  of  such  a  size  as  to  accommodate  seve- 
ral persons  each  (see  John  xxi.  20),  and  moreover,  were 
generally  made  fast  to  the  walls  of  the  building.  Is  not 
immersion,  in  such  a  case  as  this,  to  the  last  degree,  im- 
probable ?  We  need  not  say,  impossible ;  because,  as  Dr. 
Carson  suggesjts,  these  tables  or  couches,  might  have  been 
made  to  take  to  pieces,  and  so  immersed,  piece  by  piece. 
And  so,  we  add,  might  hous3s  be  made  to  take  to  pieces ; 
and.  therefore,  if  we  had  read  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
baptism  of  houses,  it  would  not,  upon  such  principles, 
have  proved  that  baptizo  did  not  mean  "  to  dip,  never  sig- 
nifying anything  but  mode." 


Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament.  41 

§  19.  Hehrcios,    ix.    10. 

"Which,"  i.  e.  the  first  tabernacle — "was  a  figure  for 
the  time  then  present,  in  which  were  offered  both  gifts 
and  sacrifices,  that  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  ser- 
vice perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience;  Which 
stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  walkings, 
(baptisms)  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until 
the  time  of  reformation." 

A  literal  translation  of  this  passage  is—"  Which  was  a 
type  for  the  time  then  present,  in  which  were  offered  gifts 
and  sacrifices ;  which  cannot,  with  respect  to  the  con- 
science, make  perfect,  the  person  worshiping  only  with 
meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms,  carnal  ordi- 
nances, imposed  until  the  time  of  reformation." 

This  literal  translation  is  given,  because,  in  our  English 
version,  several  phrases  are  interpolated  in  the  text  (as  is 
acknowledged  by  printing  them  in  italics) ;  and  these 
phrases,  we  think,  render  the  connection  between  the 
several  members  of  the  sentence  obscure,  where  that  con- 
nection is  very  plain  in  the  original.  And  also,  because 
the  kai  "and,"  before  "carnal  ordinances,"  is  now  rejected 
from  all  our  best  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 

What  were  these  divers  baptisms,  of  which  Paul  here 
speaks,  as  "  imposed  until  the  time  of  reformation?  "  We 
answer — the  purifications  enjoined  in  the  law  of  Moses. 

To  the  translation  of  the  word  haptismois,  here,  immer- 
sions, there  are,  we  think,  insuperable  objections. 

1.  The  baptisms  here  spoken  of,  it  is  evident  from  the 
context,  were  acts  of  personal  cleansing,  "  Which  cannot, 
with  respect  to  the  conscience,  make  perfect,  the  person  wor- 
shiping only  with  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  baptisms." 
Now,  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  not  only  were  per- 
sonal cleansings,  in  most  cases,  effected  without  anything 
which  could  possibly  be  construed  into  an  immersion,  but 
there  are  good  scriptural  reasons  for  believing,  that  im- 
mersion of  the  person  was  never  practised.  (See  §  8  and 
10.)  And  let  it  be  remarked,  we  have  here  nothing  to  do 
with  customs  which  may  have  been  introduced  under  au- 


42  Trie  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

thority  of  "  the  traditions  of  the  elders,"  since  these  bap- 
tisms were  "  imposed  until  the  time  of  reformation  ; "  and 
constituted  the  service  of  the  first  tabernacle,  "  a  type  of 
good  things  to  come."  An  inspired  apostle  would  call 
nothing,  but  that  "  imposed  "  of  God,  "  a  type  of  good 
things  to  come." 

2.  In  verse  13th,  Paul  gives  a  specification  of  one  of 
these  baptisms — "  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to 
the  PUEiFYiNG  of  the  flesh :  how  much  more  shall  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered 
Himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from 
dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God  ?  "  The  close  logical 
connection  between  verses  10  and  13,  requires  us  to  con- 
sider the  latter  verse,  as  containing  a  specification  under 
the  former.  Let  the  reader  turn  to  Heb.  IX.  and  read 
from  verse  8  to  verse  15,  and  he  will  see  how  close  this 
connection  is. 

3.  The  baptisms  here  spoken  of,  are  spoken  of  as  "  di- 
vers,'' or  different.  If  7node  is  the  only  thing  essential 
to  baptism — as  the  object  of  baptism  was  always  the  same 
under  the  law  of  Moses,  viz.  the  removal  of  uncleanness — 
the  application  of  this  epithet  "  divers,"  to  baptisms  per- 
formed, always  in  the  same  mode  and  with  the  same  ob- 
ject, is  inexplicable.  Take  the  view  for  which  we  con- 
tend, and  the  application  of  the  epithet  "■  divers  "  is  at 
once  evident,  and  most  appropriate.  In  some  instances, 
the  baptism  was  a  washing  of  the  hands  and  feet;  in 
others,  the  offering  of  a  prescribed  sacrifice;  in  others, 
sprinkling  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer ;  and  so  on,  through 
a  long  catalogue  of  rites  "  imposed  until  the  time  of  re- 
formation." 

§20.    Hehreios  vi.  1,  2. 

Hebrews  vi.  1,  2.  "  Therefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection ;  not 
laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead 
works,  and  of  faith  toward  God,  Of  the  doctrine  of 
BAPTISMS,  and  of  laying  of  hands,  and  of  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment." 


Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament.  43 

Near  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  Paul  writes — 
"  For  when  for  the  time  ye  ought  to  be  teaclicrs,  ye  have 
need  that  one  teach  you  again  which  be  the  fir d  principles 
of  the  oracles  of  God."  (Ilcb.  v.  12.)  For  the  expression, 
"  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,"  he  substitutes, 
in  the  passage  before  us,  the  phrase,  "  the  principles  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ."  To  the  mind  of  a  Jew,  the  idea  na- 
turally suggested  by  "  the  oracles  of  God,"  would  be  that 
of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures;  and  by  immediately 
afterwards  substituting  for  it,  the  phrase,  "  the  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,"  he  would  present  to  their  minds, 
the  truth  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  that  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  were  one  and  the  same. 

This  would  be  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  course  of 
thought  and  argument,  which  prevails  throughout  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  In  this  epistle,  to  use  Paul's 
own  language — "  unto  the  Jews,  he  becomes  a  Jew,  that 
he  may  gain  the  Jews ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as 
under  the  law,  that  he  may  gain  them  that  are  under 
the  law ;"  illustrating,  explaining,  and  proving  "  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,"  from  "  the  oracles  of  God,"  i.  e.  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  Hence,  when  he  comes  to  specify 
"  principles,"  we  must  understand  him  as  referring  to 
them,  as  exhibited  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  as 
well  as  in  the  clearer  light  of  the  New  Dispensation. 

The  reader  will  find  but  little  difficulty  in  catching  the 
Apostle's  style  of  thought,  if  he  will  turn  to  the  xi.  chap- 
ter, and  study  the  illustration  there  given  of  it,  in  the  case 
of  faith  toward  God.  There  were  baptisms  under  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation,  so  much  the  same  in  their 
efiiect  in  visibly  separating  the  baptized  unto  God's  ser- 
vice, and  so  much  the  same  in  their  symbolic  import  with 
the  baptism  administered  in  Paul's  day,  that  to  the  Jews, 
familiar  with  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  rightly 
understanding  those  Scriptures,  "the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tisms,'' might  well  be  reckoned  among  the  "  first  principles 
of  the  oracles  of  God,"  or  "  the  doctrine  of  Christ."  It  is 
in  this  view  of  the  matter,  as  we  think,  that  Paul  here 
uses  the  word  baptisms,  in  the  plural,  meaning  to  include, 
not  only  Christian  baptism,  and  the  baptism  of  John,  but 


44  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

also  the  "divers  baptisms  "  of  which  he  speaks  in  chap, 
ix.  ver.  10,  as  "  imposed  "  of  God,  under  a  former  dispen^ 
sation.  By  "  doctrine,^'  we  understand — God's  teaching. 
It  is  in  this  view  of  the  Apostle's  meaning,  that  we 
have  selected  the  phrase,  "  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,"  as 
the  title  of  the  present  treatise. 


Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament. 


45 


CHAPTER  VI. 


FIGURATIVE    APPLICATIONS   OF   THE   WORD   "  BAPTIZO. 


2  21.  Christ's  Baptism  in  his  Death,  Matt.  xx.  22,  23 
xii.  50.  222.  Baptism  "unto  Moses,"  1  Cor.  x.  2. 
1  Pet.  iiL  21. 


Mark,  z.  38,  39 ;  and  laike, 
I  23.   Baptism  in  the  Ark, 


§  21.   Quiet's  baptism  in  his  death. 


Matt.  XX.  20-23. 

V.  20.  "  Then  came  to  him  the 
mother  of  Zebedee's  children 
with  her  sons,  worshipping 
him. 

And  he  said  unto  her.  What 
wilt  thou  ?  She  saith  unto 
hira,  Grant  that  these  my  two 
sons  may  sit,  the  one  on  thy 
right  hand,  and  the  other  on 
the  left,  in  thy  kingdom. 
But  Jesus  answered  and  said, 
Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask. 
Are  ye  able  to  drink  of  the 
cup  that  I  shall  drink  of,  and 
to  De  BAPTIZED  with  the  bap- 
tism that  I  am  baptized 
with  ?  They  say  unto  him. 
We  are  able. 

And  he  saith  unto  them.  Ye 
shall  drink  indeed  of  my  cup, 
and  be  baptized  with  the 
BAPTISM  that  I  am  baptized 
with :  but  to  sit  on  m}'  right 
hand,  and  on  my  left,  is  not 
mine  to  give,  but  it  shall  be 
given  to  them  for  whom  it  is 
prepared  of  my  Father." 


21 


22. 


23. 


Mark,  X.  35-40. 

V.  35.  "  And  James  and  John,  the 
sons  of  Zebedee,  came  unto 
him,  saying,  Master,  we 
would  that  thou  shouldst  do 
for  us  whatsoever  we  shall  de- 
sire. 

36.  And  he  saith  unto  them. 
What  would  ye  that  I  should 
do  for  you  ? 

37.  They  say  unto  him.  Grant 
unto  us  that  we  may  sit,  one 
on  thy  right  hand,  and  the 
other  on  thy  left  hand,  in  thy 
glory. 

38.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Ye 
know  not  what  ye  ask :  Can 
ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I 
drink  of?  and  be  baptized 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am 
baptized  with  ? 

39.  And  they  say  unto  him,  We 
■  can.      And    Jesus    said   unto 

them.  Ye  shall  indeed  drink 
of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of  ; 
and  with  the  baptism  that  I 
am  baptized  withal  shall  ye 

be   BAPTIZED  ; 

40.  But,  to  sit  on  my  right  hand 
and  on  my  left  hand,  is  not 
mine  to  give  ;  but  it  shall  be 
given  to  them  for  whom  it  la 
prepared. 


46  .     Tiie  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Luke,   xii.   49,  50. 

Luke  xii.  49,^0.  ''I  am  come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth, 
and  what  will  I,  if  it  be  already  kindled  ?  But  I 
have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with ;  and  how  am  I 
straitened  till  it  be  accomphshed." 

The  declaration  of  our  Lord,  made  in  answer  to  the 
request  of  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  the  one  recorded 
in  Luke  xii.  50,  were  made  on  entirely  different  occa- 
sions ;  yet,  from  the  context,  it  appears  so  evident  that  he 
referred  to  his  death,  in  both,  that  all  commentators  agree 
that  it  is  of  this  he  speaks  as  the  baptism  which  was  before 
him.  The  only  point  on  which  commentators  differ,  is  as 
to  the  particular*  view  of  his  death,  in  which  he  calls  it  a 
baptism. 

Many  understand  our  Lord  to  call  his  death  a  baptism 
inasmuch  as  it  was  to  be  a  scene  of  overwhelming  suffer- 
ing ;  and  hence,  cite  this  use  of  the  w^ord  baptize,  as  an 
instance  of  its  use  in  the  sense  of  overwhelm.  To  this 
interpretation,  we  have  two  objections,  suggested  by  an 
examination  of  the  passages  themselves-. 

1.  Jesus  asks  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  "  Are  ye  able  to 
drink  of  the  cup  that  I  shall  drink  of,  and  to  be  baptized 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  wnth  ?"  and  in  their 
reply,  as  also  in  our  Lord's  subsequent  rejoinder,  the  same 
specifications  are  kept  up,  and  this  according  to  the  Gos- 
pels both  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  metaphor  our  Lord 
uses  in  his  words,  "  are  ye  able  to  drink  of  the  cup  that 
I  shall  drink  of?"  is  a  standing  metaphor  with  the  sacred 
writers  to  represent  bitter  sufferings,  and  is  thus  used  by 
Jesus  himself  when,  "  sorrowful  unto  death,"  overwhelmed 
with  the  very  sufferings  referred  to  in  the  passage  under 
examination  :  "  0  my  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup 
pass  from  me  ;  nevertheless,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou 
wilt.  0  my  Father,  if  this  cup  may  not  pass  away  from 
me,  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will  be  done."  (Matt.  xxvi.  39, 
42.)  There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  in  the  question, 
"  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  shall  drink  of  ?"  Christ 
refers  directly  tc  the  overwhelming  character  of  his  sufier- 


Baptizo  in  the  New  Tcstavient.  47 

ings  in  his  death.  If  now  we  understand  him  to  refer  to 
his  death,  in  the  same  aspect  of  it,  in  his  question,  "  Can 
ye  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with '?."  then  have  the  two  questions  but  one  and  the  same 
meaning,  and  we  can  see  no  reason  why  the  distinction 
between  the  two  questions  is  so  carefully  preserved,  as  it 
Is,  throughout  both  the  Gospel  narratives. 

2.  In  Luke  xii.  50,  Christ  speaks  of  this  his  baptism  in 
his  death,  as  something  for  the  lack  of  which  he  is  strait- 
ened, cramped  in  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom,  *'  And 
how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be  accomplished."  Now  it  is 
not  by  his  death,  viewed  directly  as  a  scene  of  bitter  suf- 
fering, but  rather  as  a  scene  of  perfect  obedience  of  Christ, 
the  sinner's  substitute,  on  the  sinner's  behalf,  that  he 
comes  into  the  possession  of  the  powers  and  prerogatives 
of  the  mediatorial  throne :  "  And  being  found  in  fashion  as 
a  man,  he  humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore  God  also 
hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is 
above  every  name;  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and 
things  under  the  earth;  and  that  every  tongue  should 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father."^  (Phil  ii.  8-11.) 

Christ's  priesthood  is  a  priesthood  "  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedec,"  (Heb.  vi.  20,)  i.  o.,  both  an  eternal  and  a 
royal  priesthood ;  one  in  which  the  character  of  "  King 
of  righteousness  and  peace "  is  blended  with  that  of 
''  Priest  of  the  Most  High  God,"  (see  Heb.  vii.)  and  by 
his  death  was  he  fully  set  apart  to  this  royal  priesthood : 
"  For  every  high-priest  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and  sac- 
rifices; wherefore  it  is  of  necessity  that  this  man  ('Christ 
Jesus  ')  have  somewhat  also  to  offer."  "  For  Christ  is  not 
entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands,  which  are 
the  figures  of  the  true,  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  ap- 
pear in  the  presence  of  God  for  us  :  nor  yet,  that  he  should 
ofier  himself  often,  as  the  high-priest  cntereth  into  the 
holy  place  every  year  with  blood  of  others ;  for  then  must 
he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the  world  : 
but  new,  once  in  the  end  of  the  world,  hath  he  appeared 


48  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  "  But  this 
man,  after  he  had  oflfered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,  for  ever  sat 
down  on  the  right  hand  of  God ;  from  henceforth  expect- 
ing till  his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool."  (Heb.  viii.  3; 
ix.  24-26;  x.  12,  13.)  In  the  view  which  Paul  here 
gives  us  of  Christ's  sufferings,  they  are  distinctly  pre- 
sented as  consecrating  sufierings — sufferings  by  which  he 
was  to  be  separated  unto  God's  service  as  a  royal  priest ; 
and  his  death  is  a  baptism,  in  the  sense  in  which  we 
understand  that  word. 

Understanding  our  Lord  to  speak  of  his  death  as  a  bap- 
tism, in  this  view  of  it,  we  avoid  both  of  the  difficulties 
attaching  to  the  other  interpretation ;  and  in  both  in- 
stances, we  give  to  his  words  a  meaning  which  exactly 
suits  the  context. 

1.  In  Matt.  XX.  20-23,  and  Mark  x.  35-40,  it  is  the 
request  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  that  "  they  may  sit,  the 
one  on  his  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  his  left,  in  his 
kingdom,"  which  gives  rise  to  the  question,  "  Can  ye  drink 
of  the  cup  that  I  shall  drink  of?"  "Can  ye  be  baptized 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ?"  By  drink- 
ing the  cup  of  divine  wrath,  when  he  took  the  sinner's 
law-place,  when  "  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon 
him,"  he  redeemed  from  death  these  who  were  to  be  the 
subjects  of  his  kingdom ;  by  his  baptism  in  his  death,  he 
was  publicly  set  apart  to  his  royal  priesthood,  and  "  all 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  was  given  unto  him,"  that 
he  might  rule,  and  defend,  and  establish  his  kingdom. 
How  natural  the  questions  then,  to  those  aspiring  to  share 
that  kingdom  with  him — ''  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that 
I  shall  drink  of?  Can  ye  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
with  which  I  am  baptized  ?" 

John  and  James  evidently  had  very  low  and  earthly 
notions  of  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  which  Christ  had 
come  to  establish ;  and  they  had,  at  the  same  time,  a  very 
inadequate  idea  of  the  sufferings  by  which  that  kingdom 
was  to  be  purchased  and  put  into  his  possession.  They  did 
not  yet  understand  that  his  sufferings  must  be  unto  death, 
although  he  had  expressly  informed  them  that  such  was 
the  fact.     Hence  their  reply  to  his  questions,  "  We  can." 


Baptizo  ill  the  New  Testament.  49 

Christ  Josus,  in  characteristic  sympathy  with  their  weak- 
ness, and  because  they  were  not  yet  able  to  bear  the  whole 
truth,  does  not  correct  their  erroneous  notions  (erroneous, 
in  that  they  were  inadequate) ;  but  using  the  terms  in  the 
sense  in  which  they  understood  them,  he  replies :  "  Ye 
shall  indeed  drink  of  my  cup,  and  bo  baptized  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with."  That  the  reader  may 
understand  how  Christ  could  use  such  language  in  the 
sense  which  we  give  it,  let  him  consider  such  passages  of 
Scripture  as  these  :  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed 
us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us 
kings  and  pnests  unto  God  and  his  Father ;  to  him  be 
glory  and  dominion,  forever  and  ever,  Amen."  (Rev.  i. 
5,  6.)  "  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  that  ye  which  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration 
when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory, 
ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twilva  thrones,  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel."    (Matt.  xix.  28.) 

2.  Turning  now  to  Luke  xii.  50,  in  ver.  49,  our  Lord 
has  set  forth  the  designs  of  his  mission.  "  I  am  come 
to  send  fire  on  the  earth,"  i.  e.,  I  have  come  to  establish  a 
kingdom,  which,  in  its  progress,  shall  be  like  a  fire,  con- 
suming that  which  is  dross,  an(i  refining  all  that  is  gold. 
"  And  what  will  I,  if  it  be  already  kindled  ?"  i.  e.,  What 
do  I  wish  but  that  it  were  already  kindled.  "  But  I  have 
a  BAPTISM  to  be  baptized  with,"  i.  e.,  I  must  be  conse- 
crated, separated  unto  Cod,  as  a  royal  priest,  ere  this,  my 
desire,  can  be  fulfilled;  ere  "  all  power  in  heaven  and  in 
earth  shall  be  given"  into  my  hands.  "And  how  am  I 
straitened  until  it  be  accomplished?"  Christ's  three 
years  of  public  ministry  had  resulted  in  bringing  into  his 
kingdom  "one  hundred  and  twenty  souls."  (Acts  i.  15.) 
On  the  single  day  of  Pentecost,  after  his  consecration,  his 
baptism  in  his  death,  "  three  thousand  souls  "  were  added 
to  the  number.   (Acts  ii.  41.) 

We  have  remarked  that  commentators  differ  as  to  the 
particular  view  of  his  death,  in  which  Christ  calls  it  a 
baptism.  Most  modern  commentators  understand  him  to 
refer  to  it  in  view  of  the  overwhelming  sufferings  by 
which  it  was  to  be  accomplished.  Not  so  the  earlier  Chris- 
3 


60  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

tian  Fathers,  especially  those  of  the  Eastern  Church,  who 
wrote  while  the  Hellenistic  Greek  remained  a  living  lan- 
guage, and  who  therefore  may  be  presumed  to  have  known 
tlie  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  as  used  in  our  Lord's 
day.  These,  without  exception,  take  the  view  of  it  which 
has  just  been  presented  as  the  true  one.  Christ  calls  his 
death  a  baptism,  because  by  that  death  he  was  to  be  set 
apart  to  the  office  of  his  royal  priesthood."^ 

§  22.  Israel's  baptism  "  unto  Moses." 

1  Corinthians  x.  1,  2.  '*  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not 

that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers 

were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the 

sea ;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud 

and  in  the  sea." 

Paul  here  refers  to  events  accompanying  the  passage  of 

the  Red  Sea,  by  Israel,  in  their  exodus  from  Egypt.    That 

we  may  see  in  what  sense  he  speaks  of  these  events  as 

a  baptism,  let  us  turn  to  the  account  of  them,  given  us  by 


1.  Thei/  were  baptized  "  in  the  cloud."  Exod.  xiv. 
19,  20.  "  And  the  pillar  of  cloud  went  from  before  their 
face,  and  stood  behind  them:  and  it  came  between  the 
camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  camp  of  Israel ;  and  it  was  a 
cloud  and  darkness  to  them,  but  it  gave  light  by  night  to 
these :  so  that  the  one  came  not  near  the  other  all  the  night." 

Was  there  any  immersion  of  Israel  in  the  cloud? 
" And  the  pillar  of  cloud," — it  was  only  a  pillar ;  i.e.,  a 
small  cloud  in  the  form  of  a  pillar — "  went  from  before 
their  face  and  stood  behind  them,  and  it  came  between 
the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  camp  of  Israel " — it 
was  not  directly  over  either — "  and  it  was  a  cloud  and 
darkness  to  them,  but  it  gave  light  by  night  to  these;  so 
that  one  came  not  near  the  other  all  the  night."  It  con- 
tinued between  the  Egyptians  and  the  Israelites  all  the 
night  until  the  sea  was  passed.     To  imagine  the  immer- 

1  For  proofs  the  reader  is  referred  to  "  Beecher  on  Baptism,"  pp. 
61-67. 


Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament.  61 

sion  of  Israel  in  this  cloud,  is  not  simply  to  go  beyond 
the  record,  but  is  to  contradict  that  record. 

That  which  the  cloud  ett'ected,  by  its  peculiar  move- 
ment, on  this  occasion,  was  a  separation  of  Israel  unto 
God's  service,  and  this  in  union  with  Moses.  Hence  it 
comes  "  between  the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  camp 
of  Israel;"  and  whilst  it  "gives  light  to  the  one,  it  is 
cloud  and  darkness  to  the  other ;"  and  so  continues  until 
the  sea  is  passed — "  and  the  one  came  not  near  the  other 
all  the  night."  This  separation  unto  God's  service,  con- 
stituted Israel's  baptism  in  the  cloud. 

2.  They  were  baptized  "  in  the  sea."  Exod.  xiv.  27-31. 
"  And  Moses  stretched  forth  his  hand  over  the  sea,  and 
the  sea  returned  to  his  strength  when  the  morning  ap- 
peared ;  and  the  Egyptians  fled  against  it ;  and  the  Lord 
overthrew  the  Egyptians  in  the  midst  of  the  sea.  And 
the  waters  returned  and  covered  the  chariots,  and  the 
horsemen,  and  all  the  hosts  of  Pharaoh  that  came  into  the 
sea  after  them ;  there  remained  not  so  much  as  one  of 
them.  But  the  children  of  Israel  walked  upon  dry  land 
in  the  midst  of  the  sea ;  and  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto 
them  on  their  right  hand,  and  on  their  left.  Thus  the 
Lord  saved  Israel  that  day  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Egyp- 
tians ;  and  Israel  saw  the  Egyptians  dead  upon  the  sea 
shore.  And  Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  the  Lord 
did  upon  the  Egyptians  :  and  the  people  feared  the  Lord, 
and  believed  the  Lord,  and  his  servant  !Moses." 

This  last  phrase — "  and  believed  the  Lord  and  his  ser- 
vant Moses,"  probably  suggested  to  Paul  the  phraseology, 
"  baptized  into  or  unto  Moses."  Understanding  the  term 
baptized  to  mean  separated  unto  God's  service,  how  ap- 
propriately does  God  style  the  passage  of  the  sea  by 
Israel,  accompanied  as  it  was  by  the  utter  destruction  of 
the  Egyptian  hosts,  their  baptism  in  the  sea.  It  was  that 
they  might  become  his  peculiar  people,  separated  from 
among  the  nations,  and  separated  unto  his  service,  that 
the  Lord  interposed  in  the  miraculous  manner  related  by 
Moses,  so  that  Israel  "  walked  upon  dry  land  in  the  midst 
of  the  sea,"  whilst  the  Egyptians  were  overthrown. 

If  we  translate  the  word  baptizo  here,  immersedy  we 


52  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

make  Paul  flatly  contradict  Moses.  Moses  says,  "  they 
walked  upon  dry  land  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  the 
waters  were  a  ivall  unto  them,  on  their  right  hand  and 
on  their  left."  Yet,  with  this  record  before  him.  Dr.  Carson 
writes — "  Moses,  Mr.  Hall  tells  us,  walked  on  dry  ground. 
Yes,  and  he  got  a  dry  dip.  And  could  not  a  person, 
literally  covered  with  oilcloth,  get  a  dry  immersion  in 
water  ?" '  To  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  plainly  re- 
corded facts,  by  such  worse  than  childish  trifling  with 
God's  Word,  is  utterly  unworthy  the  character  of  an 
expositor  of  Scripture ;  and  none  but  a  desperate  cause 
could  call  for  such  a  defense  as  this. 

There  was  an  immersion  on  this  occasion,  as  Moses  in- 
forms us;  but  not  of  baptized  Israel.  "  And  the  waters 
returned,  and  covered  the  chariots  and  the  horsemen,  and 
all  the  host  of  Pharaoh,  that  came  into  the  sea  after 
them."  And  as  the  consequence  of  this  immersion,  Moses 
tells  us — ''  And  Israel  saw  the  Egyptians  dead  upon  the 
sea  shore."  The  Egyptians  were  the  party  immersed. 
Here,  then,  is  a  case,  in  which,  according  to  the  express 
testimony  of  Scripture,  there  was  both  a  baptism  and  an 
immersion ;  but  the  party  baptized,  was  the  one  not  wi- 
mersed;  and  their  baptism  consisted  in  their  escaping 
immersion  ;  whilst  the  party  im.m,ersed,  was  the  one  that 
was  not  baptized  ;  their  immersion  was  a  terrible  immer- 
sion to  them. 

§  23.  Baptism  iyi  the  Ark. 

1  Peter  iii.  18-21.  "  For  Christ  also  hath  once  suf- 
fered for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he 
might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit :  By  which  also 
he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison : 
Which  sometime  were  disobedient,  when  once  the 
long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah, 
while  the  Ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is, 
eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water :    The  like  figure 

1  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  413. 


Baptizo  in  the  New  Tcstaiaent.  53 

wliereunto,  even  baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us," — 
literally,  as  baptism,  the  antetypo  does  now  save 
us, — "  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,)  by 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ :  Who  is  gone  into 
heaven,  and  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God;  angels,  and 
authorities,  and  powers,  being  made  subject  unto 
him." 

We  are  clearly  taught  in  Scripture,  that  in  early  times, 
God  did  often  "  so  dispose  the  events  of  His  providence, 
and  appoint  the  external  relations  of  His  people,  as  to 
give  by  means  of  them,  an  exhibition  of  the  better  things 
of  the  Gospel ; "  thus  giving  rise  to  that  class  of  types, 
which,  by  way  of  distinction,  are  called  historic  types.  In 
the  passage  before  us,  true  Christian  baptism,  is  declared 
to  be  an  antetype  of  the  salvation  of  Noah,  and  the  few 
that  were  with  him  in  the  ark. 

Between  a  type  and  its  antetype,  there  must  be  a  re- 
semblance, such  that  the  former  will  set  forth,  and  suggest 
the  latter.  In  what  particular  or  particulars,  was  the  sal- 
vation of  Noah  a  type  of  baptism  ? 

Let  the  reader  notice  particularly.  1.  Peter  does  not 
say  that  the  ark  was  a  type  of  baptism;  so  that  the 
shutting  up  of  Noah  in  the  ark,  between  which  and  im- 
mersion, some  persons  have  a  fancy  lively  enough  to 
discover  a  resemblance;  might  be  understood  to  be  the 
particular  upon  which  the  typical  relation  rested.  His 
declaration  is — that  it  was  the  salvation  of  the  eight  souls 
in  the  ark,  and  hy  the  water  (our  version  is  literal  here), 
of  which  baptism  is  the  antetype.  2.  He  does  not  say,  that 
salvation  by  baptism  is  the  antetype  of  the  salvation  of 
the  eight  in  the  ark,  but  that  baptism  itself  is  the  ante- 
type ;  and  this,  that  baptism  which  consists  not  in  the 
mere  "  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,"  but  that 
which  results  in  "  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God,"  and  saves  through  "  the  resurrection  of  Christ  Jesus." 

A  statement  of  the  question  then,  in  exact  accordance 
with  the  declaration  of  Peter,  will  be  :  In  what  particular 
or  particulars,  was  the  salvation  of  the  eight  souls  (in- 


54  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

eluding  Noali)  in  the  ark,  hy  the  waters  of  the  flood,  a 
type  of  true  Christian  baptism  ? 

Understand  the  word  baptism  to  mean  immersion,  and 
immersion  only,  and  give  it  that  sense  here,  and  the  typi- 
cal relation  between  the  salvation  of  Noah  in  the  ark  hy 
water,  and  this  baptism,  is  inexplicable.  The  eight  were 
the  only  ones  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  teeming  earth 
that  were  saved,  and  they  were  not  immersed,  and  were 
saved  because  they  were  not  immersed.  But  understand 
the  word  haptisni  in  the  sense  for  which  we  contend — i.  e, 
a  visible  separation  unto  God's  service — and  how  simple 
the  exposition  of  this  passage. 

The  salvation  here  spoken  of  was  not  a  salvation 
from  the  flood.  The  eight  were  saved  from  the  flood ; 
but  had  Peter  intended  this  salvation,  he  would  have 
called  it  a  salvation  from  the  water,  and  not  "  hy 
the  water."  The  flood  itself  wrought  out  for  them  a 
greater  salvation  than  their  deliverance  from  its  over- 
flowing waters — a  salvation  similar  to  that  which  was 
wrought  out  for  righteous  Lot  in  God's  terrible  over- 
throw of  the  guilty  cities  of  the  plain.  To  which  last 
Peter  refers,  in  connection  with  the  salvation  of  Noah, 
when  declaring  the  truth  that,  "the  Lord  knoweth  how 
to  deliver "  (to  save)  "  the  godly  out  of  temptations ; " 
(2  Pet.  ii.  9) — a  salvation  for  them  as  constituting  God's 
church,  from  the  overflowing  flood  of  iniquity  which 
threatened  to  ingulf  them.  This  was  their  salvation 
in  the  ark  hy  water,  which  was  a  type  of  the  baptism 
which  now  saves  us. 

True  Christian  baptism — "  not  the  putting  away  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God  " — i.  e.  not  the  external  rite,  but  the  spiritual 
substance  symbolized  in  that  rite — now  saves  us  from  the 
dangers  and  temptations  of  an  apostate  world,  and  this 
"by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ;"  he  who  "once 
suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust,"  but  now,  in  his  resur- 
rection, has  "  ascended  up  on  high,  leading  captivity  cap- 
tive," that  he  might  "give  gifts  unto  men."  (Eph, 
iv.  8.) 

When   God    "opened    the   windows   of    heaven,"   and 


Baptizo  in  the  New  Testament.  55 

"broke  up  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep,"  dcUiging  the 
earth,  he  immersed  the  guilty  multitude,  now  "in  prison," 
to  whom  he  had,  by  his  Spirit,  preached  long  in  vain ; 
and  a  terrible  immersion  it  was  to  them.  By  this  same 
deluge  he  baptized  his  little  church  in  the  ark,  not  one 
drop  of  water  touching  them;  thus  visibly  separating 
them  unto  his  service.  And  on  the  cleansed  earth  the 
Church  commenced  her  course  anew. 

Such  is  a  heaven-selected  type  of  baptism ;  and  we 
will  search  the  history  of  early  times  in  vain  to  find  one 
more  beautiful  or  more  appropriate,  than  this  salvation 
of  "  the  eight  souls  m  the  ark,  and  hy  the  water." 


56  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

BAPTISM   WITH   THE   HOLY    GHOST   AND   WITH    FIRE. 

g24.   Matt.  iii.  11;   Mark  i.  8 ;   Luke   iii.   16;   John  i.  26,33;   Acts  i.  4-8;   ii.  1-4, 
16-18,  32,  33;  x.  44-48;  xi.  15,  10. 

Matt.  iii.  11.  "  I  indeed  BAPTIZE  you  with  water  unto 
repentance :  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier 
than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear :  he 
shall  BAPTIZE  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire." 

Mark  i.  8.  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water :  but  he 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Luke  iii.  16.  "  John  answered,  saying  unto  them  all,  I 
indeed  baptize  you  with  water ;  but  one  mightier 
than  I  cometh,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  unloose ;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 

John  i.  26.  "  John  answered  them  saying,  "  I  baptize 
with  water;  but  there  standeth  one  among  you, 
whom  ye  know  not."  Vs.  33.  "  And  I  knew  him 
not :  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the 
same  said  unto  me.  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the 
Spirit  descending  and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is 
he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Acts  i.  4-8.  "  And  being  assembled  together  with  them, 
commanded  them  that  they  should  not  depart  from 
Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father, 
which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me.  For  John 
truly  BAPTIZED  with  water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
wit^  the  Holy  Ghcst  not  many  days  hence.  When 
they  therefore  were  come  together,  they  asked  of 


Baptism  icith  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Fire.  57 

him,  saying,  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore 
again  the  kingdom  to  Israel?  And  he  said  unto 
them,  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the  sea- 
sons which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power. 
But  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  has  come  upon  you ;  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses 
unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea,  and 
in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth." 

Acts  iii.  1-4.  "  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully 
come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place. 
And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of 
_a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto 
them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire;  and  it  sat  vpon 
each  of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues, 
as  the  Spirtt  gave  them  utterance." 

Acts  ii.  16-18.  "  But  this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by 
the  prophet  Joel,  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the 
last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit 
upon  all  flesh :  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters 
shall  prophesy,  and  your  young  men  shall  see  visions, 
and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams :  And  on  my 
servants  and  on  my  hand-maidens  I  will  pour  out 
in  those  days  of  my  Spirit:  and  they  shall  pro- 
phesy." 

Acts  ii.  32,  33.  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof 
we  are  all  witnesses.  Therefore,  being  by  the  right 
hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the 
Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 

Acts  X.  44-48.  "  While  Peter  yet  spake  these  words,  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word. 
And  they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed,  were 
astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because 
that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  For  they  heard  them  speak  with 
tongues  and  magnify  God.  Then  answered  Peter, 
Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be 
3* 


58  The  Doctrine  of  Baptwns. 

BAPTIZED,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
well  as  we  ?     And  he  commanded  them  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
Acts  xi.   15,    16.  "  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy 
Ghoat  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.     Then 
remembered   I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he 
said,    John   indeed    baptized   with   water :  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
We  have  here,  placed  together  all  the  passages  in  the 
New  Testament  which  refer  directly  and  explicitly  to  the 
"  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire ;"  that  the 
reader,  having  the  whole  record  before  him,  may  be  able 
to  judge  more  correctly  what  this  baptism  was.     ^l.s  a 
summary  of  what  is  here  stated,  we  give  the  folloiuing, 
viz. : 

1.  John,  when  baptizing  in  Jordan,  utters  a  prophecy, 
or  an  inspired  exposition  of  a  prophecy,  viz.  That  one, 
mightier  than  he,  was  coming,  who  shoftld  baptize,  not 
with  water  as  he  did,  but  with  "  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with  fire."     (Matt.  iii.  11 ;  Luke  iii.  16.) 

2.  He  that  was  to  administer  this  better  baptism  with 
''  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,"  was  the  Lord  Jesus. 
(John  i.  33.) 

3.  The  Lord  Jesus,  after  his  resurrection,  meets  his 
disciples  assembled  in  Jerusalem ;  and  repeating  the  pro- 
mise given  by  John,  of  a  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
not  many  days  thereafter,  commands  them  that  they  de- 
part not  from  Jerusalem  until  they  had  received  this  bap- 
tism.    (Acts  i.  4,  5.) 

4.  Shortly  after  this,  the  disciples  were  "  all  with  one 
accord,  in  one  place"  in  Jerusalem;  when  suddenly, 
"there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire, 
and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them ;  and  they  were  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues, 
as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."     (Acts  ii.  1-4.) 

5.  This  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  a  gift  immediately  from 
Christ  Jesus.     (Acts  ii.  32,  33.) 

6.  As  the  consequence  of  this,  we  read :  "  And  the 
multitude  came  together  and  were  confounded,  because 
that  every  man  heard  them  speak  in  his  own  language : 


Baptism  ivith  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Fire.  59 

Parthians  and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in 
Mesopotamia,  and  in  Judea,  and  in  Cappadocia,  in  Pontus 
and  Asia,  Phrygia  and  Pamphylia,  in  Egypt,  and  in  the 
parts  of  Lybia  about  Cyrene,  and  strangers  of  Rome,  Jews 
and  proselytes,  Cretes  and  Arabians.  Then  they  were 
pricked  in  their  hearts,  and  said  unto  Peter  and  the  rest  of 
the  Apostles,  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?  Then 
Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every 
one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word,  were  baptized, 
and  the  same  day,  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls."     (Acts  ii.  6,  9,  10,  37,  38,  41.) 

7.  In  the  event  subsequently  occiu'ring  in  Cornelius' 
house,  at  Cesarea,  a  similar  effect  follows,  the  evident  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost :  "  For  they  heard  them  speak  with 
tongues."  (Acts  x.  45.)  And  this,  Peter  declares  to 
be  a  fulfillment  of  our  Lord's  words,  "  Ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost."     (Acts  xi.  16.) 

What  was  this  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire  ?  or  rather,  why  was  this  miraculous  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  consequence  of  which  those  who  received  it 
"  spake  with  other  tongues,"  called  a  baptism  ? 

We  answer  :  It  is  called  a  baptism,  not  on  account  of 
anything  in  the  mode  of  bestowment  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
or  the  visible  symbol  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  because  it 
was  a  visible  setting  apart  of  the  Church  for  God's  ser- 
vice, in  the  fulfillment  of  the  commission  a  little  while  be- 
fore given  to  her:  " Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  (Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  20.)  "  And  he  said  unto  them,  that  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among 
all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem."  (Luke  xxiv.  47.) 
This  idea  is  most  distinctly  set  forth  in  our  Lord's  words, 
when  directing  them  to  remain  in  Jerusalem  and  await 
the  promised  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  But  ye 
shall  receive  power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you :  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Je- 


60  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

rusalem  and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  earth."  (Acts  i.  8.)  And  the 
subsequent  history  is  but  an  illustration  of  these  words. 
The  gift  of  tongues  was  "  a  sign  "  (samion),  as  Paul  tells 
us,  "to  them  that  believe  not,"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  22.)  Christ's 
own  miracles  were  signs,  (See  Matt.  xii.  38 ;  John  ii.  18) 
i.  e.,  "  tokens  and  indications  of  the  near  presence  and 
working  of  God  ; "  and  this  gift  of  tongues  had  all  the  le- 
gitimate effects  of  a  sign,  as  related  in  the  second  chapter 
of  the  Acts. 

John's  language,  repeated  by  Christ  himself,  seems 
clearly  to  imply  that  this  baptism  was  to  be  a  nobler  and 
truer  baptism  than  that  with  water.  And  so  it  appears, 
in  the  view  which  we  take  of  it.  This  baptism  was  a 
literal,  not  a  figurative  one  as  Dr.  Carson  contends.  In 
water-baptism,  such  as  that  administered  by  John,  there 
is,  1.  The  living  person  baptized.  2.  The  sensible  ele- 
ment (using  the  term  element  in  its  theological  sense) 
with  which  the  baptism  is  performed,  i.  e.,  water;  and  3. 
The  living  person  administering  the  baptism.  In  the  case 
before  us,  there  are,  1.  Living  persons  baptized.  2.  A 
sensible  element  with  which  the  baptism  is  performed,  i.  e., 
the  cloven  tongues  of  fire.  Were  this  wanting,  the  bap- 
tism might  be  called  a  figurative  baptism.  And.  3.  A 
living  person  administering  the  baptism,  viz.  the  Lord 
Jesus — not  visible  to  mortal  sense,  it  is  true,  but  perfect- 
ly visible  to  the  eye  of  faith.  "  lie  hath  shed  forth  this 
which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  This  baptism  was  a  nobler 
baptism  than  that  of  John,  because  performed  by  a  nobler 
person,  and  for  a  nobler  purpose.  In  ordinary  baptisms, 
we  but  symbolize  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  whether 
or  not  the  symbol  shall  represent  that  which  has  been 
truly  received  into  the  heart,  depends,  not  upon  the  bap- 
tizer,  but  upon  the  faith  of  him  who  receives  the  baptism. 
Here,  the  Lord  Jesus,  himself  the  baptizer,  in  his  sove- 
reignty, bestows  the  gift  along  with  the  symbol.  In  this 
view  of  the  matter,  we  remark,  the  baptism  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire,  administered  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, was  the  truest  baptism  ever  administered  upon  earth. 
In  the  one  particular  in  which   water-baptism  is   often 


Baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Fire.  Gl 

nothing  more  than  a  figure,  a  shadow  without  a  sub- 
stance, this  baptism  was  reah 

Was  this  baptism  an  immersion  ?  Will  the  word  bap- 
tizo,  in  this  account  of  the  baptism  "  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  fire,"  bear  the  translation  immerse  or  dip,  with- 
out doing  violence  to  the  context  ? 

First. — There  was  a  baptism  "with  fire."  It  is  dis- 
tinctly so  set  forth  by  John,  as  his  words  are  recorded  by 
Matthew  and  Luke,  and  also  in  the  inspired  account  of  the 
baptism  itself.  This  fire  was  in  the  form  "  of  cloven 
tongues,"  and  "  it- sat  on  them."  Acts  i.  3.  Is  not  this 
language  as  definite  as  language  can  be  ?  And  does  it  not 
exclude  the  idea  of  immersion  ? 

Second. — This  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  only 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  terms 
distinctly  modal  are  used  to  designate  the  baptizing  ele- 
ment. These  terms  are — "  came  from  heaven,"  "fell  on 
\heTQ."  " poured  out"  and  " shed  forth.''  And  here  let 
the  reader  remark  : — 

1.  The  use  of  modal  terms  does  not  occur  once  only, 
but  uniformly  throughout  the  whole  account  given  us  of 
this  baptism.  In  the  narrative  of  Luke  we  have — "  caine 
from  heaven,"  "fell  on  them,"  was  " shed  forth"  and 
poured  out;  " — in  Joel's  prophecy,  as  quoted  by  Peter,  we 
nave  "poured  out,"  and  a  second  time  "poured  out;" — 
in  the  baptism  at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  "fell  on  them" 
and  "  was  poured  out;  "  and  in  Peter's  defence  at  Jerusa- 
lem, "fell  on  them." 

2.  These  modal  terms,  whilst  all  in  harmony  one  with 
the  other,  are  all  utterly  at  variance  with  the  modal  terms 
dip  and  immerse. 

3.  As  already  remarked,  this  is  the  only  instance  in 
which  terms  distinctly  modal  are  used  to  describe  the  ap- 
plication of  the  baptizing  element,  in  the  whole  course  of 
the  New  Testament. 

Thied. — It  is  not  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  spiritual  es- 
sence, nor  yet  of  the  spiritual  influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  that  this  language  is  used.  That  which  "  came 
from  heaven,"  which  was  "poured  out,"  was  "shed  forth," 
which  "fell  on  them"  that  were  baptized  of  the  Holy 


G2  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Ghost,  was  simply  the  sensible  symbol  of  the  Spirit's  pre- 
sence and  influences;  it  was  that  which  stood  in  the  same 
relation  to  the  spiritual  essence  and  influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  the  water  of  baptism  now  does  ;  and  hence 
Peter's  language — "  he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now 
see  and  hear.'' 

Dr.  Carson's  horror  at  what  he  is  pleased  to  represent 
as  the  opinion  of  his  opponents,  is  a  horror  at  the  creature 
of  his  own  imagination.  "  Our  opponents,"  writes  he, 
"  understand  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  to  be  a  literal  pour- 
ing out  of  Him  who  is  immaterial.  Baptism,  whatever 
be  the  mode,  cannot  represent  either  the  manner  of  con- 
veying the  Spirit,  or  his  operations  in  the  soul.  These 
things  cannot  be  represented  by  natural  things.  There  is 
no  likeness  to  the  Spirit,  nor  to  the  modes  of  his  opera- 
tions. It  is  blasphemy  to  attempt  a  representation.  It 
would  be  as  easy  to  make  a  likeness  of  God  creating  the 
world,  and  attempt  to  represent,  by  a  picture,  the  Divine 
operations  in  the  formation  of  matter,  as  to  represent  by 
symbols  the  manner  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  his  operations  on  the  soul.  If  Christians 
were  not  infatuated  with  the  desire  of  establishing  a  fa- 
vorite system,  such  gross  conceptions  of  God  could  not 
have  so  long  escaped  detection."  ^ 

To  this,  we  reply — We  agree  perfectly  with  Dr.  Carson, 
that  it  is  not  the  spiritual  essence  "  of  him  who  is  imma- 
terial "  which  is  said  to  be  "poured  out,"  to  ''fall  on 
them,''  to  be  "  shed  forth";  nor  is  it  a  representation  of  "  the 
mode  of  the  Spirit's  operations  "  which  we  have  in  these 
words.  Were  it  either  the  one  or  the  other,  this  language 
would  furnish  no  legitimate  argument  for  determining  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptizo  as  used  by  the  Apostles,  or 
of  the  Apostolic  mode  of  baptism.  It  is  just  because  that 
of  which  such  language  is  used,  is  the  audible  and  visible 
symbol  of  the  Spirit's  presence  and  influences — that  which 
stands  in  just  the  same  relation  to  the  spiritual  essence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  his  spiritual  influences,  that  water 
does  in  Christian  baptism — that  we  speak  of  this  baptism 

'  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  105. 


Baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Fire.  63 

as  a  literal  baptism;  and  appeal  to  this  language  as  a 
sound  and  legitimate  argument,  and — in  the  absence  of 
all  other  modal  language  in  the  Word  of  God — as  an  ar- 
gument of  great  weight,  in  determining  such  a  question 
as  that  before  us. 

To  state  the  case  in  brief : — Here  is  "a  baptism  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  Can  we  reconcile  the  idea 
tlmt  baptizo  "has  but  one  signification — it  always  signifies 
to  dip,  never  expressing  anything  but  mode,"  with  the  use 
of  such  expressions,  to  represent  the  application  of  the 
baptizing  element,  as — it  ''  came  from  heaven,"  it  ^' sat  on 
them,"  it  was  "poured  out"  it  "was  shed  forth,"  it  "fell 
on  them  ?  " 


64  TIce  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

USE   OF   BaptizO   IN    ITS   SPIRITUAL   SENSE. 

I  25.    1   Cor.  xii.  13.    §  26.    Gal.  iii.  27.    ?  27.  Eph.  iv.  5.    ?  28.  Origin  of  the  Doc- 
trine of  Baptismal  Regeneration. 

In  our  definition  of  the  term  baptizo,  as  used  in  the 
Word  of  God,  in  §  13,  we  remarked,  that  it  was  sometimes 
used  in  a  spiritual  sense ;  to  mean  regenerate,  sanctify. 
Of  this  statement,  we  purpose  giving  proof  in  the  present 
chapter. 

As  instances  of  a  similar  use  of  the  analogous  terms, 
circumcise,  cleanse,  purify;  we  cite:  Lent. xxx.  6,  "And 
the  Lord  thy  God  will  eircwndse  thine  heart,  and  the 
heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live." 
Eph.  v.  25,  26,  "  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and  gave 
himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with 
the  washing  of  water  by  the  Word."  Acts  xv.  9,  "  And 
put  no  difference  between  us  and  them,  purifying  their 
hearts  by  faith."  This  use  of  the  terms  circumcise, 
cleanse,  purify,  renders  it  probable,  a  priori,  that  baptize 
will  be  used  by  the  sacred  writers  in  a  similar  way. 

§25.  1   Corinthians,  xii.  13. 

1  Corinthians  xii.  18.  "  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath 
many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one 
body,  being  many,  are  one  body :  so  also  is  Christ. 
For  by  one  Spirit,  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond 
or  free ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  diink  into  one 
Spirit." 


Use  of  Baptizo  in  its  Spiritual  Sense.  65 

That  the  word  baptize  is  here  used  in  a  spiritual  sense, 
appears  from  these  considerations,  viz. 

1.  The  baptism  is  said  to  be  "  by  one  Spirit,"  or,  "  by 
the  one  Spirit,"  i.  e.  as  all  evangelical  commentators 
agree,  by  the  Holy  Spirit — the  third  person  in  the  blessed 
Trinity.  Man  administers  ritual  baptism  with  water; 
Christ  Jesus  l^aptized  his  Church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
with  "  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,"  in  visible  form. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  in  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  Scripture, 
baptizes  with  those  spiritual  graces  which  constitute  re- 
generation, alone. 

2.  As  a  consequence  of  the  baptism  here  spoken  of,  or 
rather,  as  an  expression  equivalent  to  "  we  are  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,"  the  Apostle  adds,  "and  have  all 
been  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit ;  "  thus  presenting  the 
same  idea  which  he  has,  a  httle  before,  dwelt  upon  in 
his  words.  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  the  bread 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  ?  For  we  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one 
body."  (1  Cor.  x.  16,  17.)  The  unity  here  spoken  of,  is 
evidently  the  unity  of  all  Christians  in  Christ ;  the  unity 
which  is  symbolized  by  their  communion  in  the  Lord's 
supper.  In  other  words :  it  is  a  spiritual  unity,  the  re- 
sult of  a  spiritual  baptism. 

We  would  paraphrase  the  verse :  "  For  by  the  one 
Holy  Spirit  are  we  all  regenerated  into  one  church  spirit- 
ual, whether  we  bo  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond 
or  free ;  and  as  we  all  drink  of  one  sacramental  cup,  so 
have  we,  in  our  regeneration,  all  been  made  to  drink  into 
one  Spirit. 

§  26.   Galatians,  iii.  27. 

Galatians  iii.  26-29.  "  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God 
by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ. 
There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female :  for, 
ye   are   all   one   in    Christ   Jesus.      And   if   ye   be 


66  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Christ's,  tlien  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  ao- 
cording  to  the  promise." 

That  the  baptism  here  spoken  of,  is  a  spiritual,  and  not 
a  ritual  baptism,  we  infer  : 

1.  From  what  is  said  respecting  the  result  of  this  bap- 
tism, in  the  case  of  those  who  have  received  it,  viz  :  they 
"  have  put  on  Christ ;  "  a  phrase  uniformly  used  by  Paul, 
to  express  a  spiritual  change.  Kom.  xiii.  12,  14,  "The 
night  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand  :  let  us,  therefore, 
cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on  the  ar- 
mor of  light.  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
make  no  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  there- 
of." Eph.  iv.  22-24,  ''  That  ye  put  off  concerning  the 
former  conversation,  the  old  man,  which  is  corrupt,  ac- 
cording to  the  deceitful  lusts  ;  and  be  renewed  in  the 
spirit  of  your  mind  :  and  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holi- 
ness." 

2.  From  the  context.  Paul's  argument,  which  runs 
through  all  this  portion  of  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
turns  upon  the  distinction  between  "  the  letter"  and  "the 
spirit,"  and  his  design  is,  to  set  forth  the  peculiar  excel- 
lence of  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  a  spiritual  dispen- 
sation ;  and  thus  to  guard  the  Galatian  Christians  against 
that  legal  spirit  with  which  they  seemed  "  bewitched  " 
(iii.  1) ;  and  to  keep  them  from  making  their  religion  con- 
sist in  the  "  observance  of  days,  and  months,  and  times, 
and  years,"  the  "  beggarly  elements  whereunto  they  de- 
sired to  be  again  in  bondage,"  (iv.  9,  10.)  In  contrast 
with  such  a  religion,  Paul  sets  before  them  a  religion  of 
faith,  such  as  he  affirms  that  true  religion,  in  this  world, 
has  ever  been.  The  spiritual  sense  of  baptism,  in  tlie  pas- 
sage under  examination,  alone,  suits  such  a  context. 

We  would  paraphrase  the  passage  :  "  For  ye  are  all  the 
children  of  God,  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  for  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  regenerated  into  a  spiritual  union  with 
Christ,  have,  by  that  very  operation,  cast  off  the  works  of 
darkness,  and  put  on  Christ  Jesus ;  and  thus  have  ye  evi- 
dently been  made  one  with  Christ,  and  through  him,  have 


Use  of  Baptizo  in  its  Spiritual  Sense.  07 

become  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise,  in  the  true  sense  of  that  promise. 

§  27.  Ephesians  iv.  5. 

Ephesians  iv.  3-6.  ''  Endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  There  is  one  body, 
and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of 
your  calUng ;  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  ; 
One  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  you  all." 

"We  would  give  to  the  word  baptism  here,  a  spiritual 
sense : 

1.  Because  there  is  an  incongruity,  amounting  almost 
to  impiety,  in  placing  a  mere  external  rite  in  such  associ- 
ation as  baptism  is  here  placed  in  ;  but  give  to  the  word 
its  spiritual  sense,  and  a  beautiful  harmony  is  seen  in  its 
association.  We  can  understand  why  regeneration  should 
be  associated  with  membership  in  the  Church  spiritual, 
(i.  e.  "  the  one  body,")  the  Christian's  hope,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Christ  Jesus,  and  God  the  Father,  as  constituting 
"  a  bond  of  peace ;  "  but  not,  why  water-baptism  should. 

2.  Paul  is  here  giving  a  summary  of  Christian  unities. 
If  either  sacrament  is  to  be  introduced  into  the  summary, 
the  Scriptures  would  lead  us  to  expect  that  it  would  be 
the  Lord's  Siqoper  ;  one  express  design  of  which  is,  to  set 
forth  the  unity  of  Christians  by  then*  communion  in  "  the 
body  and  blood  "  of  their  common  Lord,  (see  1  Cor.  x.  16, 
17),  and  not  the  sacrament  of  Baptism. 

We  would  paraphrase  this  passage  :  "  Endeavoring  to 
keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  There 
is  one  body,  even  the  church  spiritual,  of  which  Christ  is 
the  head,  and  ye  are  all  members ;  (see  1  Cor.  xii.  27), 
and  there  is  one  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  ye  are  all  effectu- 
ally called,  in  one  hope  of  your  calling  ;  one  Lord,  Jesus 
Christ,  one  faith  in  Him,  by  the  which  ye  are  all  saved, 
and  one  regeneration,  by  the  which  ye  are  made  one  with 
Him  ;  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  you  all." 


68  Tlie  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Other  instances  of  tlie  use  of  baptizo,  in  its  spiritual 
sense,  will  be  given  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work. 
(See  §§  35,  36.) 

§  28.  Origin  of  the  Doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration. 

That  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  prevailed 
in  the  Christian  Church  at  an  early  day,  and  that  there  is 
much  in  the  phraseology  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers 
which,  at  first  sight,  seems  to  countenance  this  doctrine, 
are  facts  well  known  to  every  one  who  has  studied  the 
history  of  the  Church.  Many  account  for  this,  by  saying, 
that  the  doctrine  once  adopted,  has  given  rise  to  this  pe- 
culiar phraseology.  On  the  contrary,  we  believe  the 
phraseology  has  given  rise  to  the  doctrine ;  and  we  believe 
this  for  two  reasons,  viz. : 

1.  "We  find  this  phraseology  in  use  at  a  very  early  date, 
and  long  before  we  have  any  sufficient  evidence  that  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  had  begun  to  prevail 
in  the  Church.  Indeed,  the  Romanists,  and  Puseyites, 
and  Campbellites,  of  our  day,  in  common  with  the  earlier  ' 
advocates  of  baptismal  regeneration,  derive  their  most 
plausible  arguments  from  the  language  of  Scripture  itself, 
by  giving  to  the  term  baptism,  a  ritual,  when  it  is  evi- 
dently used  in  a  spiritual  sense  ;  as  in  Gal.  iii.  27,  "  For 
as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have 
put  on  Christ." 

2.  Where  a  word,  such  as  baptizo,  is  used  in  two  senses 
— one  spiritual,  and  the  other  external  and  material — the 
tendency  of  religious  formalism  is  ever  to  substitute  the 
latter  sense  for  the  former  ;  and  this,  for  the  reason,  that 
a  "  manipulated  religion  "  suits  well  the  pride  of  the  natu- 
ral heart.  Abundant  proof  of  this  remark,  will,  at  once 
suggest  itseK  to  every  student  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 


The  Baptism  of  Repentance.  69 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ALL  WATER-BAPTISMS,  IN   THEIR  NATURE,  PURIFICATIONS. 

?  29.  "  The  Baptism  of  Repentance."  Matt.  iii.  7,  8, 11 ;  Mark  i.  4 ;  Luke  iii.  7,  8, 
12;  Lukevii.  29,  30;  Matt.  xxi.  25;  Mark  xi.  30 ;  Acts  i.  22 ;  Acts  xiii.  24;  Acta 
X.  37  ;  Acts  xix.  1-7  ;  Acts  xviii.  24-26.  g30.  Christ's  Baptism  by  John.  Matt, 
iii.  14, 17;  Mark  i.  9-11 ;  Luko  iii.  21,  22;  John  i.  22,  35.  §31.  Christian  Bap- 
tism.   Acts  ii.  41 ;  Acts  viii.  12-16  ;  Acts  xviii.  8. 

§  29.  "  The  Baptism  of  Repentance." 

Matt.  iii.  7,  8,  11.  "But  when  he  (John)  saw  many  of 
the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  come  to  his  baptism, 
he  said  unto  them,  0  generation  of  vipers,  who 
hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ? 
Bring  forth,  therefore,  fi'uits  meet  for  repentance.  I 
indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance,  but 
he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose 
shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear;  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 

Mark  i.  4.  "  John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  and 
preach  the  baptism  of  repentance,  for  the  remission 
of  sins." 

Luke  iii.  3,  7,  8,  12.  "  And  he  (John)  came  into  all  the 
country  about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, for  the  remission  of  sins.  Then  said  he  to 
the  multitude  that  came  forth  to  be  baptized  of  him, 
0!  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you  to 
flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth,  there- 
fore, fruits  worthy  of  repentance.  Then  came  also 
publicans  to  be  baptized." 

Luke  vii.  29,  30.  "  And  all  the  people  that  heard  him 
(Jesus),  and  the  Publicans,  justified  God,  being  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  of  John.  But  the  Pharisees 
and  Lawyers  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against 
themselves,  being  not  baptized  of  him." 


70  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Matt.  xxi.  25.  "The  baptism  of  Jolin,  whence  was  it? 
from  heaven  or  of  men  ?  " 

Mark  xi.  30 ;  Luke  xx.  4.  "  The  baptism  of  John,  was  it 
from  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  " 

Acts  i.  22,  "  Beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto 
that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  from  us,  must  one  be 
ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection." 

Acts  xii.  24.  "  When  John  had  first  preached  before  his 
(Jesus')  coming,  the  baptism  of  repentayice  to  all  the 
people  of  Israel." 

Acts  X.  37.  "  That  word,  I  say,  ye  know,  which  was 
published  throughout  all  Judea,  and  began  from 
Gralilee,  after  the  baptism  which  John  preached." 

Acts  xix.  1-7.  "And  it  came  to  pass,  that  while  Apollos 
was  at  Corinth,  Paul  having  passed  through  the 
upper  coasts  came  to  Ephesus ;  and  finding  certain 
disciples,  he  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ?  And  they  said  Unto 
him,  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there 
be  any  Holy  GThost.  And  he  said  unto  them,  unto 
what  then  were  ye  baptized  ?  And  they  said.  Unto 
John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto 
the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which 
should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus. 
When  they  heard  this,  they  Avere  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  when  Paul  had  laid 
his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them ; 
and  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied.  And 
all  the  men  were  about  twelve." 

Acts  xviii.  24-26.  "  And  a  certain  Jew,  named  Apollos, 
born  at  Alexandria,  an  eloquent  man  and  mighty  in 
the  Scriptures,  came  to  Ephesus.  This  man  was 
instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord :  and  being  fervent 
in  the  spirit,  he  spake  and  taught  diligently  the 
things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptism  of 
John.  And  he  began  to  speak  boldly  in  the  syna- 
gogue :  whom  when  Aquila  and  Priscilla  had  heard, 
they  took  him  unto  them,  and  expounded  unto  him 
the  way  of  God  more  perfectly." 


llhc  Baptuiiii  of  Repentance.  71 

"We  have  here  placed  together  all  the  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture in  which  Johu's  baptism  is  spoken  of  as  a  baptism  of 
repeiitanee.  And  along  with  these,  certain  other  passages, 
calculated  to  throw  light  upon  the  import  of  that  phrase 
and  the  true  nature  of  John's  baptism.  We  do  not  de- 
sign, in  this  place,  to  inquire  into  the  mode  in  which  John 
administered  his  baptism :  that  subject  properly  belongs 
to  Part  II.,  and  is  not  necessarily  involved  in  the  determi- 
nation of  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  The  only 
questions  we  shall  attempt  to  answer  now,  are :  What 
was  the  nature  of  John's  baptism  ?  and  what  its  import  ? 

In  answer  to  the  first  of  these  questions  we  remark : — 

1.  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  nor  could 
it  serve  in  the  place  of  Christian  baptism.  It  was  not 
Christian  baptism  inasmuch  as  it  was  not  baptism  in  the 
"  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ; "  and  it  was  not  an  initiatory  rite  into  any  Church. 
It  was  not  a  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Old  Testament 
Church,  since  those  who  received  it,  "  Jerusalem  and  all 
Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,"  were  al- 
ready members  of  that  church  in  virtue  of  their  circum- 
cision. It  was  not  a  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian 
Church,  since  that  church  had  not  begun  to  be  esta- 
blished; and  although  many  thousands  must  have  re- 
ceived John's  baptism,  yet  after  our  Lord's  crucifixion, 
and  just  before  the  "  day  of  pentecost,"  we  find  the  Chris- 
tian Church  in  Jerusalem  containing  but  "  about  one 
hundred  and  twenty  "  members.     (Acts  i.  15.) 

That  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism  is  ren- 
dered yet  more  evident,  by  the  fact  that  when  Paul  finds 
certain  persons  at  Ephesus  who  had  received  John's  bap- 
tism, he  re-baptized  them  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  The  most 
eminent  modern  Baptist  writers  all  admit  the  correctness  of 
the  views  just  expressed.  Some  of  the  older  Baptist  wri- 
ters took  diff"erent  ground,  and  in  order  to  maintain  their 
position,  contended  that  those^said  to  have  been  baptized 
by  Paul  at  Ephesus  in  Acts  xix.  5,  were  not  the  persons 
said  to  have  been  baptized  by  John  in  v.  3.  On  this, 
Robert  Hall,  himself  a  Baptist,  remarks  :  "  In  the  whole 
compass  of  theological  con  tro vers v  it  would  be  difficult  to 


72  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms, 

find  a  stronger  instance  than  this,  of  the  force  of  preju- 
dice in  obscuring  a  plain  matter-of-fact." 

2.  John's  ministry  and  baptism,  according  to  the  plain 
and  oft-repeated  representations  of  Scripture,  belonged  to 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  ;  and  were  only  prepara- 
tory to  the  new.  "And  he  (John)  shall  go  before. him  in 
the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  make  ready  a  people  pre- 
pared for  the  Lord."  (Luke  i.  17.  See  also  Matt.  iii.  3 ; 
John  i.  23.)  The  Old  Testament  dispensation,  with  all 
its  ceremonies,  continued  until  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, 
Then,  and  not  till  then,  Christ  appears  "  blotting  out 
the  handwriting  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which 
was  contrary  to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it 
to  his  cross."     (Col.  ii.  14.) 

Hence,  Jesus  himself  was  ''  circumcised,"  and  when  the 
days  of  his  mother's  purification  were  accomplished,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Moses,  he  was  brought  to  Jerusalem 
and  presented  to  the  Lord.  (Luke  ii.  21,  22.)  Hence,  too, 
when  among  his  first  miracles  he  cleanses  a  leper,  he 
gives  the  direction — "  go  show  thyself  to  the  priest,  and 
olfer  for  thy  cleansing,  according  as  Moses  commanded, 
for  a  testimony  unto  them."  (Luke  v.  14.)  To  the  "mul- 
titude, and  to  his  disciples,"  Christ  gives  the  general  di- 
rection:— "  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat: 
All,  therefore,  whatsoever  they  bid  you  observe,  that 
observe  and  do;  but  do  not  ye  after  their  works."  (Matt, 
xxii.  2,  3.)  One  of  his  last  public  acts,  before  his  betrayal, 
was  to  observe  with  his  disciples  the  Jewish  feast  of  the 
Passover.  "  Now  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  the  disciples  came  to  Jesus,  saying  unto  him; 
Where  wilt  thou  that  we  prepare  for  thee  to  eat  the  pass- 
over?  And  he  said:  Go  into  the  city  to  such  a  man, 
and  say  unto  him ;  The  Master  saith,  my  time  is  at  hand, 
I  will  keep  the  passover  at  thy  house  with  my  disciples. 
And  the  disciples  did  as  Jesus  had  appointed  them,  and 
they  made  ready  the  passover.  Now  when  the  even  was 
come,  he  sat  down  with  the  twelve."    (Matt.  xxvi.  17-20.) 

In  answer  to  the  other  question — What  was  the  import 
of  John's  baptism  ?  we  reply  : — It  was  a  "  baptism  of  or 
unto  repentance ; "  that  is,  a  baptism  in  which  the  recipi- 


The  Baptism  of  Repentance.  73 

ent  professed  repentance  {meta  noia,  a  change  of  mind  or 
spirit),  and  thus  placed  himself  in  the  attitude  of  an  ex- 
pectant of  the  coming  Messiah.  In  other  words,  a  pu- 
rification, a  separation  unto  God's  service,  by  which 
"  the  way  of  the  Lord  was  prepared  and  his  path  made 
straight.''  Many,  doubtless,  received  the  baptism  un- 
worthily ;  and  to  them  it  was  no  blessing.  Many,  also, 
received  it  worthily,  and  by  their  baptism  were  prepared 
for  the  reception  of  the  Messiah.  ''And  all  the  people 
that  heard  him  (Jesus)  and  the  publicans,  justified  God, 
being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John.  But  the  Phari- 
sees and  Lawyers  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against 
themselves,  being  not  baptized  of  him."  (Luke  vii.  29,  30.) 
In  this  respect,  John's  baptism  was  not  unlike  the  puri- 
fication which  Israel  underwent  in  preparation  for  the 
reception  of  the  Law  at  Sinai.     (See  Exod.  xix.  10,  11.) 

All  that  has  been  said  respecting  John's  "  baptism  unto 
repentance,"  is  true  also  of  the  baptism  administered  by 
Christ's  disciples,  before  their  Lord's  crucifixion.  The 
substance  of  their  preaching  and  that  of  John  was  the 
same.  "  As  ye  go,  preach,  saying,  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  at  hand;  "  (Matt.  x.  7.)  "Into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter, 
heal  the  sick  that  are  therein,  and  say  unto  them  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  (Luke  x.  8,  9.)  So 
closely  were  the  baptism  and  the  new  doctrine  connected, 
that  the  one  term  is,  in  Scripture,  employed  for  the 
other.  "  The  baptism  of  John,"  (i.  e.  the  new  doctrine), 
"was  it  from  heaven,  or  of  men?"  (Matt.  xxi.  25.) 
"  After  the  baptism,"  (i.  e.  the  doctrine),  "  which  John 
preached."  (Acts  x.  37.) 

John's  baptism,  then,  was  in  its  essential  nature, 
simply  a  purification.  And  here,  as  we  shall  after- 
wards have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  matter,  we  ask  the 
reader  to  notice,  that  baptism,  though  it  be  administered 
by  divine  appointment,  be  "from  heaven,"  is  not  neces- 
sarily an  initiatonj  rite  into  any  church.  It  may  be,  like 
the  ordinary  purifications,  established  by  Moses'  law,  but 
a  setting  apart  of  those  already  in  the  Church,  for  some 
special  purpose  or  service  of  God.  Christian  baptism  is, 
we  believe,  always  an  initiatory  rite ;  but  this  is  not  the 
4 


74  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

case  with  every  rite  to  which,  in  Scripture,  the  name  of 
baptism  is  given,  as  illustrated  in  the  case  before  us. 

§  30.  Christ's  Baptism  hy  John. 

Matt.  iii.  13-17.  "Then    cometh   Jesus  from   Galilee    to 
Jordan,  unto    John,   to  be  baptized  of  him.     But 
John  forbade  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  bap- 
tized of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ?     And  Jesus 
answering,  said  unto  him,  suffer  it  to  be  so  now  :  for 
thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.     Then 
he  suffered  him.     And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized, 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water ;  and  lo,  the 
heavens  were   opened   unto   him,  and   he   saw   the 
Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting 
upon  him :  And  lo,   a   voice   from   Heaven,  saying, 
This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 
Mark  i.   9-11.  "  And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that 
Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  bap- 
tized of  John,  in  Jordan.     And  straightway  coming 
up  out  of  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened,  and 
the  Spirit,  like  a  dove,  descending  upon  him.     And 
there  came  a  voice  from  Heaven,  saying.  Thou  art 
my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 
Luke  iii.  21,  22.  "  Now,  when  all  the  people  were  bap- 
tized, it  came  to  pass,  that  Jesus  also  being  bap- 
tized, and  praying,  the  Heaven  was  opened.     And 
the  Holy  Gliost  descended  in  a  bodily  shape,  like  a 
dove,   upon  him ;  and  a  voice  came  from  Heaven, 
which  said,  Thou  art  my  beloved   Son ;  in  thee  I  am 
well  pleased." 
John  i.  32,  83.  "  And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw 
the  Spirit  descending  from  Heaven  like  a  dove,  and 
it  abode  upon  him.     And  I  knew  him  not :  but  he 
that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said 
unto  me.  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  de- 
scending and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  which 
baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

What  was  this  baptism  which  Christ  received  at  the 


Chrisi''s  BajHism  by  John.  75 

hands  of  John  ?  "We  do  not  intend,  here,  to  inquire  into 
the  mode  of  this  baptism ;  that  subject  will  be  examined 
in  another  place.  (See  §  38.)  But  what  was  this  baptism 
in  its  nature  and  import  ? 

We  answer :  Certainly  not  a  baptism  such  as  that  which 
John  administered  to  others ;  i.  e.,  "a  baptism  unto  re- 
pentance." Christ  Jesus  was  "  holy,  harmless,  undefiled, 
and  separate  from  sinners,"  and  hence,  repentance  was,  for 
him,  not  only  uncalled  for,  but  impossible.  On  this  point, 
all  commentators  are  agreed. 

Christ's  baptism  was,  we  think,  a  purification,  in  the 
Old  Testament  sense  of  that  term  (i.  e.,  a  consecration,) 
similar  to  that  administered  by  Moses  to  Aaron  and  his 
sons,  when  setting  them  apart  to  the  priesthood.  (See 
Lev.  viii.  5.)  A  visible  setting  apart  of  him,  for  his 
public  ministry  on  earth.     To  this  conclusion  we  come  : 

1.  Because  Christ  received  this  baptism,  not  in  infancy. 
When  eight  days  old,  he  had  been  circumcised.  (See  Luke 
ii.  21.)  As  the  promised  seed  of  Abraham,  come  to  fulfil 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham,  he  bore  in  his  flesh  the 
seal  of  the  covenant ;  but  this,  his  baptism,  he  received 
when  about  thirty  years  old ;  (see  Luke  iii.  23),  and 
when  just  about  to  enter  upon  his  public  ministry. 

2.  This  view  of  the  matter  explains  John's  objection  to 
baptizing  Christ — "  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee." 
Regarding  this  baptism  as  a  purification,  and  understand- 
ing that  Christ,  as  Messiah,  possessed  a  nobler  and  truer 
priesthood  than  his ;  that  he  (John)  stood  to  him  in  no 
higher  relation  than  "  the  friend,  to  the  bridgroom"  him- 
self (John  iii.  29);  he  would  naturally  say,  "I  have  need 
to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?"  Our 
Lord's  reply  to  John  is,  "Sufifer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus 
it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  In  his  won- 
drous humiliation,  "  made  under  the  law"  (Gal.  iv.  4),  he 
complied  with  all  the  requirements  of  that  law.  As  a 
priest,  he  was  set  apart  for  his  priestly  work,  as  was 
Aaron;  the  law,  which  he  afterwards  "nailed  to  his 
cross,"  being  not  yet  "taken  out  of  the  way."  (Col. 
ii.  14.) 

3.  Our  Lord's  baptism  by  John  is  immediately  followed 


76  T'Ue  Doctrine,  of  Baptisms. 

by  a  more  solemn  baptism  from  heaven,  when  the  Spirit 
was  seen,  "  descending  like  a  dove,  and  remaining  on 
him,"  and  "  a  voice  from  heaven  "  declared,  "  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 

§  31.  Christian  Baptism. 

Acts  ii,  41.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received  the  word 
were  baptized  :  and  the  same  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 

Acts  viii.  12, 13.  "Bat  when  they  believed  Philip,  preaching 
the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men 
and  women.  Then  Simon  himself  believed  also; 
and  when  he  was  BAPrrzED,  he  continued  with  Philip, 
and  wondered,  beholding  the  miracles  and  signs 
which  were  done.  16.  They  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

Acts  xviii.  8.  "  And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  nyna- 
gogue,  believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house ;  and 
many  of  the  Corinthians,  hearing,  believed,  and  were 
baptized." 

In  a  large  number  of  passages  of  Scripture,  of  which 
the  above-cited  are  a  fair  specimen,  it  is  agreed  on  all 
hands,  that  the  word  baptize  is  used  simply  to  designate 
the  rite  of  Christian  baptism.  Now  Christian  baptism  is, 
in  its  nature,  a  purification,  or  consecration  of  the  person 
baptized;  a  visible  setting  apart  of  that  person  to  God's 
service.  And  we  refer  to  it  here,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
discussing  its  nature — that  will  be  done  hereafter — but 
for  the  purpose  of  remarking  that,  as  all  the  instances, 
not  already  examined,  in  which  the  words  baptize  and 
baptism  occur  in  the  New  Testament,  are  instances  in 
which  they  are  evidently  used  to  signify  Christian  bap- 
tism, the  Old  Testament  sense  to  purify  must  suit  the 
context. 

We  have  now  completed  our  examination  of  the  use  of 
haptizo  in  the  word  of  God,  in  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  a 
fair  and  proper  determination  of  the  "  translation  ques- 


Sur/wiuig  up — Conclusion.  77 

tion."  No  instance  of  its  use,  which,  in  the  view  of  the 
author,  or  of  any  prominent  Baptist  writer,  could  assist  us 
in  arriving  at  a  correct  determination  of  this  question,  has 
been  omitted.  Let  us  now  state,  in  brief,  tiie  results  of 
this  examination,  that  we  may  see  what  conclusion  we 
must  come  to. 


SUMMING     UP  —  CONCLUSION. 

Throwing  out  of  account,  for  reasons  already  given, 
(see  §17,)  Isaiah  xxi.  4,  we  have  in  the  Septuagint  version 
of  the  Old  and  in  the  Greek  New  Testament; 

First.  A  large  class  of  passages — viz.,  those  in  which 
John's  "  baptism  of  repentance,"  John's  baptism  of  Christ, 
and  Christian  baptism,  are  spoken  of,  in  all  of  which 
(1)  baptism  is  unquestionably  a  purification,  in  the  Old 
Testament  sense  of  the  word  purify  (see  §  12),  and  in 
which  (2)  the  baptism  •may  have  been  an  immersion — to 
give  the  Baptist  every  possible  advantage,  we  are  willing 
to  Bay,  as  far  as  the  matter  is  involved  in  "  the  transla- 
tion question,"  ivas  an  immersion.  This  class  of  passages, 
then,  will  determine  nothing  respecting  the  signification 
of  haptizo;  since,  in  every  one  of  them,  we  may  give  to 
the  word  either  of  the  meanings,  purify  or  immerse,  and 
meet  the  demands  of  the  context  equally  well. 

Second.  Three  passages — viz.,  those  referring  to  Christ's 
baptism  in  his  death — in  which  we  may  give  to  haptizo 
the  sense  of  overwhelm  (but  not  of  dip,  or  immerse,  as  a 
.synonym  of  dip),  but  in  which  the  Old  Testament  sense 
of  purify  better  meets  the  demands  of  the  context.  (See 
§21.)  _ 

Third.  One  passage — viz.,  1  Kings  v.  14 — in  which  a 
religious  w^ashing,  substantially  a  purification,  and  which 
washing  may  have  been  effected  by  "  dipping  in  Jordan," 
is  called  a  baptism.  (See  §14.) 

Fourth.  A  passage — viz.,  John  iii.  25,  26 — in  which 
haptizo  is  used  as  a  synonym  of  katharizo  (purify).  And 
a  second  passage — viz.,  John  i.  19-25 — from  wliich  it  is 
evident  that  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Jews  understood 
these  terms  a.s  synonymous.  (See  §§  5,  6.) 


78  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms, 

Fifth,  A  class  of  passages,  in  which  baptizo  is  used 
in  a  spiritual  sense;  and  this  sense  is  the  same  with  the 
spiritual  sense,  which  Scripture  use  assigns  to  the  word 
purify.  (See  §§  25,  26,  27.) 

Sixth,  A  class  of  passages — viz.,  Ecc.  xxxiv  25  §15- 
Judith  xii.  7,  §16;  .Mark  vii.  4,  §18;  Luke  xi.  38,  §18,' 
Heb.  ix.  10,  §19;  Heb.  vi.  2,  §20— in  which  baptizo  is 
expressly  applied  to  Mosaic  purifications. 

/Seventh.  A  class  of  passages — viz.,  those  recording  and 
referring  to  the  "  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire  " — in  which,  to  translate  the  word  baptizo,  immerse, 
is  to  contradict  recorded  fact,  in  so  far  as  the  ''baptism 
with  fire"  is  concerned;  and  in  the  case  of  the  "baptism 
with  the  Holy  Ghost;"  to  apply  to  it  a  modal  term,  utterly 
at  variance  with  the  whole  class  of  modal  terms  in 
the  "Word  of  God ;  and  this,  in  the  only  case  in  which 
modal  terms  are  used,  with  respect  to  baptism,  in  the 
whole  Bible.  (See  §24.)  In  all  tUs  class  of  passages  the 
word  purify,  in  its  Old  Testament  sense,  meets  every  de- 
mand of  the  context. 

Eighth.  Two  passages — viz.,  1  Cor.  x.  2,  §22;  and  1 
Pet.  iii.  21,  §23 — in  which  the  translation,  purify,  i.  e., 
separate  unto  God's  service,  exactly  accords  with,  whilst 
the  translation,  immerse,  flatly  contradicts  the  plain  re- 
cord of  the  Word  of  God. 

Or  we  may  state  the  case  differently.  "We  have  af- 
firmed that  baptizo,  when  used  in  the  Word  of  God  as  a 
religious  term,  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  sense  of  the 
word  purify.  Our  reasons  for  limiting  the  question  thus 
are  given  at  large  in  Chapter  I.  If  now,  the  Baptist  can 
show  one  single  instance  in  which  baptizo  is  used  in  the 
Word  of  God  as  a  religious  term,  in  which  the  context, 
upon  a  fair  and  fuU  examination,  forbids  this  sense,  our 
position  is  overthrown.  After  a  careful  examination  of 
every  instance  in  which  baptizo  occurs  in  the  Word  of 
God,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  express  the  opinion,  that  the 
Baptist  will  search,  for  one  such  as  he  requires,  in  vain. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Baptist  affirms  that  baptizo  "has 
but  one  signification — it  always  signifies  to  dip,  never  ex- 
pressing anything  but  mode."     If,  now,  we  can  show  one 


Summiiig  up — Conclusion.  79 

single  instance  in  which  the  context,  upon  a  full  and  fair 
examination,  forbids  this  sense,  the  position  of  the  Baptist 
is  overthrown.  Instead  of  one  instance  only,  we  give  the 
Baptist  his  choice  among  the  following  eight: 

1st.    The  baptism  of  Judith.      §16. 

2d.    The  baptism  after  touching  a  dead  body.       §15. 

3d.    The  diverse  baptisms  under  Moses'  law.      §19. 

4th.  The  baptism  of  the  tables.       §18. 

5th.  The  baptism  with  fire.       §24. 

6th.  The  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost.      §24. 

7th.  The  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.       §22. 

8th.  The  baptism  in  the  ark,  by  the  flood.      §23. 

And  we  here  remark,  for  the  information  of  those  not 
accustomed  to  the  examination  of  such  questions  as  this, 
that  it  is  but  seldom  that  a  meaning  for  a  word  can  be 
established  by  so  many  clear  and  decisive  instances  as 
these. 

"What,  then,  is  the  conclusion  to  which  we  come  ?  Plain- 
ly this — 

1.  If  we  reject  our  English  word  baptize — for  baptize 
has  now  become  truly  and  properly  an  English  word — 
and  attempt  to  translate  the  Greek  baptize,  we  should 
translate  it  by  the  word  purify,  and  not  the  word  im- 
merse. At  the  same  time,  we  remark,  that  the  word  pu- 
rify,  as  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  used  in  a  sense  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  it  is  used  in  common  conversation 
and  in  the  English  classics.  The  English  word  baptize, 
in  its  common  acceptation,  more  nearly  expresses  the  ex- 
act idea  of  the  Greek  baptizo,  than  the  English  word  pu- 
rify would.  And  on  this  account,  we  would  greatly  pre- 
fer to  see  our  venerable  English  version  stand  "as of  old." 
^  2.  To  translate  the  Greek  baptizo  in  the  Word  of  God, 
by  the  English  words  dip  or  immerse;  or,  in  any  other 
language,  by  words  corresponding  to  our  English  words 
dip  or  immerse,  is  to  mis-translate  the  Word  of  God.  Not 
simply  to  make  an  allowable  variation  in  a  version  of  the 
Bible,  but — TO  mis-translate  the  Word  of  God. 


PAET  11. 
THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


4* 


THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION. 

g  32.  Statement  of  the  question—?  33.  Arguments  relied  on  to  prove  that  immer- 
Hion  is  essential  to  yalid  baptism. 

§  32.  Statement  of  the  Question. 

"Whilst  the  Baptist  and  non-Baptist  churches  agree, 
that  in  Christian  baptism  there  must  be  an  application  of 
water  to  the  person  of  the  baptized,  and  that  this  appli- 
cation must  be  made  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  they  differ  as  to  the  mode 
in  which  this  water  is  t6  be  applied. 

The  Baptist  holds  that  there  can  be  no  valid  baptism 
without  the  immersion  of  the  person  baptized. 

The  non-Baptist  churches,  whilst  admitting  the  validi- 
ty of  baptism  by  immersion,  hold  that  the  application  of 
water  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  constitutes  a  baptism 
equally  valid ;  and  that  to  require  immersion  in  order  to 
admission  to  the  Church  of  God,  is  to  infringe  upon  that 
Christian  "  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  Lis  peo- 
ple free,"  and  to  "teach  for  doctrine  the  commandments 
of  men." 

And  here,  we  would  ask  the  reader  to  notice  particu- 

83 


84  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

larly,  the  real  points  of  difference  between  the  parties  to 
this  controversy. 

1.  It  is  not  as  to  the  validity  of  a  baptism  by  immer- 
sion.    On  this  point,  both  parties  are  agreed. 

2.  The  difference  is  simply  and  solely  as  to  the  validity 
of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

The  question,  then  is  fairly  stated  thus  :  Is  immersion 
essential  to  the  validity  of  Christian  baptism  ? 

§33.  Statement  of  the  arguments  relied  on. 

The  arguments  by  which  the  Baptist  seeks  to  establish 
his  position  are  derived — 

1.  From  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  Affirming 
that  it  is  a  specific  term ;  that  it  has  but  one  signification ; 
it  always  signifies  to  dip,  never  expressing  anything  but 
mode : — he  argues,  that  to  speak  of  baptizing  by  sprink- 
ling or  pouring,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and  must  so 
have  presented  itself  to  the  mind  of  every  one  to  whom 
the  command,  "repent,  and  be  baptized,"  was  addressed 
in  the  days  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles;  just  as  we,  at  the 
present  day,  would  see  a  contradiction  in  terms  in  speak- 
ing of  immersing  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

2.  From  the  emblematic  import  of  baptism :  the  Bap- 
tist affirming  that  in  the  ordinance  we  have  an  emblem, 
not  of  spiritual  purification  alone,  but  also  of  the  spiritual 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  person  baptized. 
On  these  points.  Dr.  Carson  writes :  "  The  immersion  of 
the  whole  body  is  essential  to  baptism,  not  because  nothing 
but  immersion  can  be  an  emblem  of  purification,  but  be- 
cause immersion  is  the  thing  commanded."  This  he  af- 
firms on  the  ground  that  baptizo  "  always  signifies  to  dip, 
never  expressing  anything  but  mode."  ''And  because 
that,  without  immersion,  there  is  no  emblem  of  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  which  are  in  the  emblem  equally 
with  purification.  Had  no  emblem  but  that  of  purifica- 
tion been  intended  by  this  ordinance,  we  do  not  say  that 
immersion  would  be  either  essential  or  preferable."* 

*  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  381. 


Arguments  relied  on.  So 

3.  From  the  practice  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as  that 
practice  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  inspired  narratives  of 
baptisms  administered  in  their  day. 

The  first  of  these  arguments  we  have  already  examined 
in  Part  I. ;  the  other  two  we  propose  examining  in  Part 
II.,  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  been  mentioned. 


The  Doctrine  of  Baptmas. 


CHAPTER  11. 

SYMBOLIC   IMPORT   OF    BAPTISM. 

§34.    Rom.  vi.  3,  4;    Col.   ii.   12.       g35.    Rom.    vi.  3,  4.    g  3G.   Col.  ii.   12. 
i  37.  1   Cor.  XV.  29., 

The  passages  of  Scripture  upon  which  Baptist  writers 
rely,  as  proof  that  in  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism  there 
was  intended  to  be  incorporated  an  ''  emblem  of  death, 
burial  and  resurrection,"  are — Romans  vi.  3,  4;  Colos- 
sians  ii.  12;  and  1  Corinthians  xv.  29. 


§34.     Eom,  vi.  3,  4;  Col  ii.  12. 

Rom.  vi.  1-6.  "  "What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God  for- 
bid; how  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein  ?  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death?  Therefore,  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection. Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified 
with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed, 
that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin." 

Colossians  ii.  10-12.  ''  And  ye  are  complete  in  him,  i.  e. 
(Christ),  which  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and 
power ;  in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  ofi"  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of 


Symbolic  import  of  Baptism.  87 

Christ :  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

In  the  course  of  his  comments  on  these  two  passages, 
Dr.  Carson  remarlvs :  "I  value  the  evidence  of  these  two 
passages  so  highly  that  I  look  on  them  as  perfectly  de- 
cisive. They  contain  God's  explanation  of  his  own  ordi- 
nance. And  in  this  I  call  upon  my  unlearned  Lrethren 
to  admire  the  Divine  wisdom.  They  do  not  understand 
the  original,  and  the  adoption  of  the  words  baptize  and 
baptism  can  teach  them  nothing.  Translators,  by  adopt- 
ing the  Greek  words,  have  contrived  to  hide  the  meaning 
from  the  unlearned.  The  Spirit  of  God  has,  by  this  ex- 
planation, enabled  them  to  judge  for  themselves  in  this 
matter.  While  the  learned  are  fighting  about  baptizo 
and  certain  Greek  prepositions,  let  the  unlearned  turn  to 
Kom,  vi.  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12."  ^  In  attaching  so  great  im- 
portance to  these  passages,  Dr.  Carson  does  not  differ 
from  other  Baptist  writers ;  and  these  passages  are  those 
from  which  the  necessity  of  immersion  is  most  frequently 
argued  fr-om  the  pulpit.  On  this  account  we  shall  ex- 
amine them  with  greater  care,  and  at  greater  length, 
than  would  otherwise  seem  necessary. 

"VVe  have  placed  the  two  together  at  the  head  of  this 
section,  because  the  Baptist  argument  from  both  is  sub- 
stantially the  same.  After  examining  this  argument,  we 
shall  make  such  comments  upon  the  passages,  separately, 
as  will  serve  to  set  before  the  reader  what  we  consider 
the  true  import  of  them. 

The  Baptist  argument  for  immersion,  from  Bom.  vi.  3, 
4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  may  be  stated,  in  brief,  thus : — 

1.  The  baptism  here  spoken  of  is  ritual  baptism,  or  bap- 
tism with  water. 

2.  Paul  treats  it  as  a  universally  acknowledged  fact, 
and  therefore,  one  from  which  he  may  reason  in  settling  a 
controverted  point  of  doctrine,  that  in  the  rite  of  baptism 


Carson  on  Baptism,  pp.  144,  145. 


88  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

there  is  symbolized  the  spiritual  death,  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  the  believer.  ^ 

3,  nence  the  inference  is  drawn,  that  as  immersion  is 
the  mode  in  which  baptism  with  water  most  aptly  repre- 
sents a  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  these  passages 
teach  us  that  immersion  is  the  divinely  appointed  mod 3 
of  baptism. 

Admitting,  for  the  present,  that  we  may  give  these 
passages  a  more  thorough  examination,  that  the  baptism 
here  spoken  of  is  ritual  baptism,  as  the  Baptist  contends, 
we  remark : — 

First.  It  is  the  common  faith  of  all  evangelical  Chris- 
tian churches,  that  water-baptism  symbolizes  regenera- 
tion, or  that  spiritual  change  of  which  our  Lord  speaks, 
when  he  says  to  Nicodemus,  "  Except  a  man  be  horn 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  (John  iii.  3.) 
Thus  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  teaches,  that 
in  baptism  there  is  symbolized,  not  only  the  "  remission 
of  sins,"  but  also  our  "ingrafting  into  Christ,"  and  "our 
giving  up  unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  walk  in 
newness  of  life,"  (chap,  xxviii.) ;  i.  e.  there  is  symbolized 
regeneration,  in  the  full  Scriptural  sense  of  that  term. 

What,  now,  we  ask,  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  the 
spiritual  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  the  believer," 
his  "death  unto  sin,"  his  resurrection  to  "walk  in  new- 
ness of  life  ?  "     Nothing  more  nor  less  than  simply  re- 

^  Baptist  writers,  when  treating  of  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection 
symbolized  in  baptism,  often  make  use  of  language  so  equivocal  as  to 
leave  the  reader  m  doubt  whether  they  mean  a  spiritual  death,  burial 
and  resurrection,  or  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  the  body  of 
the  believer.  In  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  the  death  and  resurrection  are  un- 
doubtedly spiritual ;  since  the  death  is  expressly  declared  to  be,  a 
death  "  wito  sin,"  that  we  "  should  live  no  longer  therein,"  and  the 
resurrection,  a  resurrection  "to  walk  in  newness  of  life;"  not  here- 
after, in  heaven,  but  here,  upon  earth.  So  Dr.  Carson  regards  it. 
Hence  he  writes — "  Here  we  see  that  baptism  is  an  emblem  also  of  the 
new  life  of  the  Christian.  He  dies  with  Christ  to  sin,  he  rises  with  him 
to  a  new  life  of  holi-ness."  (Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  143.)  To  confound 
the  two — i.  e.,  natural  and  spiritual  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  is 
to  be  imposed  upon  by  the  mere  sound  of  words,  to  fall  into  the  same 
sort  of  error  which  Nicodemus  did  with  respect  to  the  phrase  "  Ye  must 
be  born  again,"  when  he  asked  "Can  a  man  enter  a  second  time  into 
his  mother's  womb,  and  be  born?" 


jSt/mbolic  i/npoi-t  of  BajDiis-m.  89 

generation.  When,  then,  the  Baptist  expositor  of  these 
passages  says,  Water-baptism  has  a  two-fold  import ; 
viz.,  1st,  symbolizing  regeneration  in  the  washing  with 
water;  and  2d,  symbolizing  the  spiritual  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  the  believer,  in  the  immersion  of  the 
person  baptized,  he  is  imposed  upon  by  the  mere  sound  of 
words.     His  two  things  are  but  one  and  the  same  thing. 

Second.  Where  spiritual  things  are  to  be  symbolized 
by  material  things,  the  choice  of  a  symbol  cannot  bo 
based  upon  any  proper  similitude  between  the  two ;  for, 
as  Dr.  Carson  remarks,  when  discussing  the  "  baptism 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  "There  is  no  likeness  to  the  Spirit, 
nor  to  the  mode  of  his  operations.  It  is  blasphemy  to 
attempt  a  representation.  It  would  be  as  easy  to  make 
a  likeness  of  God  creating  the  world,  and  attempt  to  re- 
present by  a  picture  the  Divine  operations  in  the  forma- 
tion of  matter,  as  to  represent  by  symbol  the  manner  of 
the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  operations 
on  the  soid."^  In  all  such  cases,  the  choice  of  a  symbol 
must  be  based  upon  some  one  of  the  several  analogies 
which  exist  between  the  material  symbol  and  the  imma- 
terial thing  symbolized. 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  several  of  these  analo- 
gies have  been  incorporated  in  the  figurative  language  of 
Scripture.  Thus,  the  sacred  writers  speak  of  regenera- 
tion as  the  substitution  of  a  heart  of  flesh  for  a  heart  of 
stone :  "  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh."  (Ezek.  xxxvi. 
26.)  As  the  taking  of  a  stone  out  of  the  earth  and  build- 
ing it  into  a  habitation :  "  In  whom  also  ye  are  buildcd 
together,  for  a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit." 
(Eph.  ii.  22.)  As  the  ingrafting  of  a  limb  into  a  body : 
"  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches ;  he  that  abideth  in 
me  and  I  in  him,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit." 
(John  XV.  5.)  As  the  putting  off  of  filthy  garments,  and 
the  putting  on  of  clean  :  "  Put  off,  concerning  the  former 
conversation,  the  old  man,  and  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holi- 

*  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  105. 


90  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

ness."  (Eph.  iv.  22,  24.)  As  a  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection with  Christ,  in  the  passages  under  examination. 
As  the  appUcation  of  a  cleansing  element  to  the  body: 
"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean."  (Ezek,  xxxvi.  25.)  These,  and  many  more 
such  analogies,  are  found  incorporated  in  the  figurative 
language  of  Scripture. 

The  choice  of  a  symbol  for  regeneration  may,  in  the 
first  instance,  be  based  upon  any  one  of  these  analogies ; 
and  when  that  choice  is  once  made,  the  symbol  will  repre- 
sent the  thing  symbolized,  no  matter  by  what  figurative 
language  you  may  choose  to  designate  it.  To  introduce 
a  new  symbol,  or  to  incorporate  a  new  element  in  the 
symbol,  for  each  one  of  the  analogies  found  in  the  figura- 
tive language  of  Scripture,  on  the  ground  that  these 
figures,  although  equivalent,  are  not  one  and  the  same — 
as  by  making  the  application  of  the  purifying  element, 
water,  emblematic  of  regeneration,  and  immersion  in 
water  emblematic  of  spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection, which  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  regenera- 
tion— is  like  insisting  upon  the  payment  of  a  debt,  once 
paid  in  gold,  a  second  time  in  silver ;  because,  whilst  gold 
and  silver  are  equivalent  in  value,  they  are  not  one  and 
the  same  substance. 

God  has  chosen  to  base  his  selection  of  a  symbol  for 
regeneration,  upon  the  purifying  effect  of  water  applied 
to  the  body,  an  analogy  familiar  to  the  minds  of  those 
among  whom  Christian  baptism  was  first  administered, 
through  their  observance  of  Moses'  law;  and  now,  the 
choice  being  made,  the  application  of  water  to  the  body 
symbolizes  regeneration,  by  whatever  figurative  language 
we  may  choose  to  designate  it. 

Is,  now,  the  question  asked,  Does  not  baptism  sym- 
bohze  the  spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the 
behever?  we  answer.  Yes.  And  for  the  same  reason, 
would  we  answer  tiie  questions,  Does  not  baptism  sym- 
bolize the  putting  oif  of  the  old  man,  and  the  putting  on 
of  the  new  ?  Yes.  Does  not  baptism  symboUze  the^  in- 
grafting of  a  believer  into  Christ,  as  a  branch  into  a  vine? 
Yes.    Does  not  baptism  symboHze  the  taking  away  of  the 


Si/mholic  import  of  Baptism.  91 

stony  heart  out  of  our  flosli,  and  the  giving  instead 
thereof  a  heart  of  flesh?  Yes.  Does  not  baptism  sym- 
bolize the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  the  guilt  and  pollu- 
tion of  sin  ?  Yes.  Baptism  symbolizes  them  one  and  all ; 
and  for  the  simple  and  sufficient  reason,  that  they  are  all 
one  and  the  same  thing — viz.,  the  spiritual  change  which 
Christ  calls  regeiuratloii,  a  being  born  agaiyi. 

Is  the  further  question  asked,  Do  not  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  the  analogy  between  "  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection" and  regeneration  was  intended  to  be  incorporated 
in  the  symbol,  baptism,  in  saying,  "  We  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life?"  we  answer,  No 
more  than  they  teach  that  the  analogy  between  the  in- 
grafting of  a  branch  into  a  vine  and  regeneration  was  in- 
tended to  be  incorporated  in  it,  in  saying,  "  For  by  one 
Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  (1  Cor.  xii. 
13.)  Or,  that  the  analogy  between  the  putting  off  of  filthy 
garments,  and  the  putting  on  of  clean,  and  regeneration, 
was  intended  to  be  incorporated  in  it,  in  saying,  "  For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put 
on  Christ."     (Gal.  iii.  27.) 

In  fact,  one  of  the  earliest  departures  from  the  simplici- 
ty of  this  rite,  as  administered  by  the  Apostles,  was  the 
removal  of  the  old  garments  from  the  person  to  be  bap- 
tized, and  the  clothing  of  him  in  a  clean  white  robe  after 
baptism.  Gal.  iii.  27,  was  pleaded  as  authority  for  this 
practice,  and  the  argument  from  the  sacred  text  was  of 
just  the  same  kind  as  that  by  which  the  Baptist  proves 
immersion  from  Rom.  vi.  3,  4;  Col.  ii.  12,  at  the  present 
day. 

Admitting,  then,  that  the  baptism  spoken  of  in  the  pas- 
sages under  examination  is  ritual  baptism,  they  do  not 
teach  immersion ;  and  every  reason  for  supposing  that  they 
do  is  based  upon  a  misapprehension,  on  one  or  other  of 
two  points — viz.  1.  That  the  spiritual  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  the  believer  is  something  different  from  his 
regeneration ;  whereas,  they  are  but  one  and  the  same 
thing.     Or,  2,  That  a  material  symbol  of  a  spiritual  thing, 


92  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms, 

must  embody,  as  distinct  elements,  all  the  analogies  exist- 
ing between  that  material  symbol  and  the  immaterial  thing 
symbolized. 

Thus  far,  we  have  taken  it  for  granted  that  the  baptism 
here  spoken  of  is  ritual  baptism,  or  baptism  with  water. 
We  now  raise  a  question  on  this  point ;  and  express  our 
belief  that  Paul  here  uses  the  term  baptism  in  its  spiritual 
sense,  i.  e.,  in  the  sense  of  regeneration ;  and,  of  course, 
that  there  is  no  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism  intended. 
From  this  point  we  must  conduct  our  examination  of 
Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  separately. 

§  35.  Rommvi,  vi.  3,  4. 

In  this  passage,  the  spiritual  sense  of  baptism  seems  to 
be  demanded,  both  by  the  peculiar  form  of  the  expression 
Paul  uses,  and  by  the  course  of  his  argument. 

First.  Paul  here  uses  the  peculiar  form  of  expression 
"baptized  into  Christ,"  and  not  the  more  common  form 
"  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ."  Let  the  reader  attempt 
to  picture  to  his  mind,  as  a  rite  to  be  administered,  a  bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  Christ  and  he  will  find  no  difficulty 
in  the  work.  It  is  just  a  rite  consisting  in  the  application 
of  water  to  the  person  of  the  baptized,  which  act,  the  bap- 
tizer  declares  to  be  done  in  the  name  of  Christ.  But  let 
him  now  make  a  similar  attempt  with  ''a  baptism  into 
Christ,"  and  he  will  see  that  this  phrase  can  appropriately 
belong  to  a  spiritual  act  only. 

This  distinction  in  the  use  of  these  forms  of  expression, 
appropriate  in  itself,  is  uniformly  observed  by  the  sacred 
writers.  The  form  "baptized  into  Christ,"  is  never  used 
where  ritual  baptism  is  intended;  the  form  "baptized  in 
the  name  of  Christ,"  is  never  used  but  when  ritual  bap- 
tism is  intended. 

As  illustrating  the  use  of  the  latter  form,  we  cite  Matt, 
xxviii.  19.  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts  ii.  38,  "Then  Peter  said 
unto  them,  Eepent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye 


Symbolic  import  of  Baptism.  93 

shall  receive  tlie  gift  of  tlie  Holy  Gliost."  Acts  xix.  5. 
"  And  lie  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
tlie  Lord  Jesus."  In  all  these  instances,  the  context  de- 
termines that  the  baptism  spoken  of  is  the  external  rite. 

As  illustrating  the  use  of  the  other  form,  we  cite  Gal. 
iii.  27.  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  mfo 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  "For  by 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  2  Cor.  x. 
2.  "And  were  all  baptized  unto  (or  into)  Moses,  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,"  These  passages,  with  the  one 
we  are  examining,  are  all  the  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  this  peculiar  form  of  expression  occurs. 
In  the  case  of  the  two  first  quoted,  we  have  already  shown 
that  the  baptism  spoken  of  is  a  spiritual  baptism.  (See 
§§  25,  26.)  In  the  case  of  the  third,  the  baptism  "unto,  or 
into  Moses,"  ritual  baptism  is  not  intended;  but  in  ac- 
cordance with  a  common  Scriptural  usage,  the  name  of  the 
antetype  is  thrown  back  upon  the  type;  Paul  meaning  by 
the  baptism  of  Israel  into  Moses,  simply,  their  separation 
unto  God's  service,  in  union  with  Moses.     (See  §22.) 

These  instances  of  the  use  of  these  two  forms  of  expres- 
sion, baptized  into  and  baptized  in  the  name  of,  go  to  es- 
tablish the  usus  loquendi  of  the  sacred  writers,  in  their 
application  of  them ;  and  require  us  to  understand  Paul, 
when  he  writes  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  iyito  Jesus  Christ,"  (Ptom.  vi.  3,)  as  speaking,  not 
of  a  ritual,  but  of  a  spiritual  l^aptism. 

Second.  The  course  of  Paul's  argument  here,  demands 
the  spiritual  sense  of  baptism,  in  this  passage.  He  is 
answering  the  objection  of  a  caviller,  to  the  doctrine 
which  forms  the  grand  subject  of  his  epistle  to  the  Eo- 
mans — the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law.  This  objection  he  first  states  in  ver. 
1,  "Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?" 
— ^just  the  grand  objection  made  to  this  doctrine  by  the 
caviller,  in  every  age  and  in  every  country,  that  it  tends 
to  immorality.  In  ver.  2,  Paul  indignantly  repels  the  in- 
ference which  constitutes  the  objection ;  "  God  forbid,'' 
his  usual  form  of  expression  at  once  of  denial  and  of  ab-  ■ 
horrence,  "  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any 


'94  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

longer  therein  ?  "  And  here,  in  the  figurative  expression, 
""dead  to  sin,"  a  very  common  expression  with  Paul  (see 
Eom.  vii.  4 ;  2  Cor.  v.  14  ;  Eph.  ii.  1 ;  Col.  iii.  3),  is  the 
fountain  from  which  springs  the  phraseology  running 
through  vers.  3,  4,  in  which  verses  he  proceeds  to  answer 
the  objection  more  at  large. 

Let  us  now  ask  the  question;  what  is  the  answer  which 
the  Scriptures  teach  us  to  make  to  this  objection — that 
the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification  tends  to  immorali- 
ty? Is  it  not  this  ?  That  in  God's  scheme  of  salvation, 
justification,  and  sanctification  (using  that  term  in  its 
widest  sense,  as  including  regeneration)  are  inseparably 
connected.  They  are  both  acts  of  a  sovereign  God ;  and 
in  the  exercise  of  his  sovereignty,  God  never  pardons  a 
sinner  without  working  in  that  sinner  a  death  unto  sin, 
that  he  may  live  unto  God.  This  is  just  the  answer 
which  Baptist  expositors,  in  common  with  ourselves, 
understand  the  Apostle  to  be  giving  expression  to  in 
vers.  3,  4;  but  with  this  difference:  Baptist  expositors 
understand  Paul  here  to  declare,  that  Christians  have 
professed  to  receive  this  as  true,  whilst  we  understand 
Paul  here  to  assert  its  truth  ;  and  considering  that  he 
is  here  answering  the  objection  of  a  caviller,  there  is 
all  the  difference  between  these  two,  in  so  for  as  argu- 
ment is  concerned,  that  there  is  between  a  profession  and 
a  fact. 

To  make  this  matter  plain,  let  us  paraphrase  this  pas- 
sage, in  accordance  with  these  different  views  of  its  inter- 
pretation. 

1.  Know  ye  (i.  e.,  ye  cavillers,  who  say,  let  us  "  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  grace  may  abound,")  not,  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Christ,  were  baptized  in  a 
mode  which  represented  in  emblem  our  spiritual  death  with 
him?  We  have  professed,  in  receiving  such  a  baptism, 
that  we  were  spiritually  buried  with  him,  and  also  our 
belief  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead, 
by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life. 

2.  Know  ye  (i.  e.,  ye  cavillers)  not,  that  so  many  of  us 
as   have  been    regenerated   into   a  spiritual   union  with 


Symbolic  imjwrt  of  Baptism.  95 

Christ,  have  been  regenerated  into  union  with  one  dead 
to  the  world?  Therefore,  being  regenerated  into  union 
with  him  in  this  his  death,  our  death  is  complete ;  we  are 
buried  with  him  in  the  regeneration.  (For  the  use  of 
even  stronger  language  than  the  word  buried,  to  express 
the  idea  of  death  completed,  see  Ezek.  vii.  3,  12  :  Gal.  vi. 
12 ;  Col.  iii.  3.)  And  we  thus  die,  that  the  same  glorious 
God  who  raised  up  Clrrist  from  the  dead,  may  raise  us  up 
also,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

Third.  The  immediate  context  demands  the  spiritual 
sense  of  baptism  here.  The  resurrection  of  the  believer, 
here  spoken  of,  is  one,  the  consequence  of  which  is  that 
he  shall  "  walk  in  newness  of  life  :" — not  hereafter  in  hea- 
ven; but  here,  at  this  present  time,  upon  earth.  The 
resurrection,  then,  is  a  spiritual  resurrection.  The  death 
of  which  Paul  speaks  is  styled  in  verse  2,  a  "  death  to 
sin;"  i.  e.,  a  spiritual  death.  The  burial  is  a  burial  "into 
this  death;"  verse  3.  A  burial  into  a  spiritual  death 
must  be  a  spiritual  burial.  If,  then,  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection,  here  spoken  of,  are  spiritual,  is  it  a  forced 
interpretation,  which  would  make  the  baptism  which  they  ■ 
constituted  ("buried  bij  baptism")  a  spiritual  baptism? 
Is  it  not,  rather,  a  forced  interpretation,  which  would 
make  it  anything  else  than  a  spiritual  baptism  ? 

§  3G.   Colossians  ii.  12. 

The  phrase,  "  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith 
of  the  operation  of  God,"  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  if  the 
"operation,"  here  mentioned,  were  baptism.  Perhaps 
there  is  something  equivocal  in  our  English  translation  : — 
in  the  original  Greek,  however,  it  is  not  so.  Doddridge 
translates  the  phrase  :  "  Ye  were  raised  with  him,  by 
belief  in  the  energy  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  McKnight  translates  it :  "  Ye  have  been  raised 
with  him  through  the  belief  of  the  strong-working  of 
God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead."  Both  of  these  trans- 
lations are  more  literal  than  that  of  our  common  version, 
and  they  both  bring  out  the  sense  in  which  "  the  operation 
of  God  "  is  to  be  understood. 


96  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

The  spiritual  sense  of  the  word  baptism,  in  this  pas- 
sage, is  demanded : — 

First.  By  the  immediate  context.  (1.)  Paul  says  of 
the  believer's  resurrection  in  baptism,  it  is  "  by  belief  in 
the  energy,  or  strong-working  of  God,"  a  resurrection  by 
faith,  i.  e.,  a  spiritual  resurrection ;  and  not  a  resurrection 
out  of  the  water,  by  the  strength  of  the  one  administer- 
ing the  baptism.  ''  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein," 
i.  e.,  in  your  baptism,  "  also  ye  are  risen  again  by  faith  in 
the  energy  of  (jrod."  If  the  resurrection  is  spiritual  so 
must  the  burial  be  also,  since  both  the  resurrection  and 
burial  belong  to,  and,  in  fact  constitute  one  baptism ;  and 
the  baptism,  constituted  as  it  is,  of  a  spiritual  resurrec- 
tion, must  be  a  spiritual  baptism,  i.  e.,  regeneration.  (2.) 
Paul  is  here  evidently  using  the  understood  nature  of  the 
older  rite,  circumcision,  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  bap- 
tism; and  to  mark  this  the  more  distinctly,  he  calls  bap- 
tism "  the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian  circum- 
cision. Now,  the  circumcision  of  which  Paul  speaks,  he 
declares  expressly,  is  a  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  i.  e.,  a  spi- 
ritual circumcision.  We  can  understand  how  spiritual  cir- 
cumcision, as  understood  by  those  to  whom  Paul  addresses 
himself,  shall  illustrate  the  nature  of  a  spiritual  baptism, 
but  not  of  water  baptism. 

Second.  By  Paul's  train  of  thought  and  reasoning  run- 
ning throughout  this  chapter.  He  is  warning  the  Colos- 
sians  against  the  danger  of  substituting  formalism  for 
spirituality  in  religion.  "  Beware,"  writes  he,  "  lest  any 
man  spoil  you,  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after 
the  traditions  of  men,  and  after  the  rudiments  of  this 
world,"  (verse  8 ;)  which  he  afterwards  more  fully  ex- 
plains in  his  words :  "Let  no  man,  therefore,  judge  you 
in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  to  a  holy-day,  or  of  the 
new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  day.  Let  no  man  beguile 
you  of  your  reward  in  a  voluntary  humility,  and  worship- 
ping of  angels,"  (verses  16,  18.)  A  striking  specification, 
this,  of  the  developments  of  formalism,  as  they  presented 
themselves  in  the  Jewish  Church  in  Paul's  day,  and  as  they 
have  appeared  in  the  "great  apostasy"  since. 


Symbolic  import  of  Baptism.  07  . 

"What  reasons  does  Paul  urge  why  Christians  should 
not  give  such  attention,  as  some  of  their  Judaizing  mem- 
bers contended  for,  even  to  some  things  lawful  and  proper  ■ 
in  themselves  and  in  their  own  place  ?  Among  others, 
this:  "They  were  complete  in  Christ,  in  whom  dwelleth 
all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  (verse  9.)  And  this  ■ 
is  just  the  point  on  which  he  is  enlarging  in  the  passage 
under  examination.  "In  whom  (i.  e.,  in  Christ),  also,  ye 
are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
in  putting  oft"  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the 
circumcision  of  Christ:  buried  ivith  him  in  baptism; 
(i.  e.,  completely  dead  with  him  in  your  regeneration), 
wherein,  also,  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  faith  in  the 
energy  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
Thus  interpreted,  verse  12  falls  in  with  the  spirit  of  verse 
11,  both  of  them  being  expository  of  Paul's  meaning  in 
saying  that  believers  are  "complete  in  Christ." 

§37.  1  Corinthians,  xv.  29. 

"  Else  what  shall  they  do,  which  are  baptized  for  the 
dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  Why  are  they,  then, 
BAPTIZED  for  the  dead?" 

Dr.  Carson's  comment  on  this  passage  is :  "  There  must 
be  an  argument  here,  and  this  object  of  baptism  must  be 
a  Scriptural  object,  otherwise  it  could  not  be  an  argument. 
Indeed,  though  to  us  the  passage  may  be  difficult,  from 
diff'erence  of  circumstances  with  respect  to  those  immedi- 
ately addressed,  yet  it  is  evident  that  the  Apostle  con- 
sidered the  argument  as  very  obvious  and  convincing. 
Now,  to  consider  the  expression  to  be  a  reference  to  the 
mode  and  import  of  baptism,  as  implying  an  emblem  of 
the  resurrection  of  believers,  will  afford  a  natural  meaning 
to  the  words,  and  an  important  argument  to  the  Apostle. 
Baptism  is  an  ordinance  that  represents  our  burial  and 
resurrection  with  Christ.  We  are  baptized,  in  the  hope 
that  our  dead  bodies  shall  rise  from  the  grave.  Now,  if 
there  is  no  resurrection,  why  are  we  baptized?  On  that 
supposition  there  is  no  meaning  in  baptism.  It  is  absurd 
for  any  to  be  baptized,  baptism  being  a  figure  of  resurrec- 
tion, if  they  do  not  believe  in  a  resurrection." 
5 


98  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

On  this  exposition,  we  remark : 

1.  It  seems  unaccountable  to  us,  if  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  was  so  clearly  figured  forth  in  baptism,  in  the 
believer's  "rising  from  his  watery  grave,"  as  the  Baptist 
contends  for,  that  serious  doubts  respecting  the  reality  of 
a  resurrection  should  ever  have  arisen  in  the  Church  at 
Corinth.  And  yet,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection 
had  been  called  in  question,  and  even  rejected  by  some, 
is  evident  from  the  lengthened  proof  of  that  doctrine 
which  Paul  gives  in  the  context.  If  immersion  were  the 
mode  of  baptism  practised  at  Corinth,  and  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, the  rising  of  the  person  immersed  out  of  the 
water,  was  universally  understood  to  be  an  emblem  of  the 
believer's  resurrection  from  the  grave;  and  this  is  so  un- 
questionably true,  that  Paul  could  appeal  to  it  as  a  deci- 
sive argument  in  establishing  the  fact  of  a  resurrection; 
we  cannot  understand  how  it  is  possible  the  Corinthians 
could  ever  have  rejected  that  doctrme. 

2.  Dr.  Carson's  interpretation^  requires  us  to  read, 
"  Else  what  shall  they  do,  which  are  baptized  in  the  hope 
of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,''  mstead  of  baptized  for  the 
dead,'^  as  Paul  has  written  it— i.  e.  to  interpolate  "the 
hope  of  the  resurrection,"  a  phrase  which  may  entirely 
change  the  meaning  of  the  text.  Such  interpolations 
should  never  be  made,  unless  there  be  unquestionable  in- 
timation in  the  context,  that  such  word  or  phrase  is  in- 
tended to  be  supplied  ;  and  no  such  intimation  is  given 
here.  By  throwing  in  a  word  or  phrase  here  and  there, 
on  the  same  principles  upon  which  Dr.  Carson  interpo- 
lates the  passage  under  examination,  it  will  be  a  very  easy 
matter  to  make  the  word  of  God  teach  anything  which 
the  expositor  chooses. 

3.  If  the  Scriptures  teach  that  in  baptism  we  have  sym- 
bolized "the  resurrection  from  the  dead,"  of  the  believer, 
they  teach  that  truth  in  this  passage  only.  The  believer's 
resurrection  spoken  of  in  Kom.  vi.  5,  is  undoubtedly  a 
spiritual  resurrection,  i.  e.  a  resurrection  only  in  figure ; 
since  it  is  expressly  declared  to  be  a  resurrection  "to  walk 

'  Carson  on  Baptir,m,  pp.  163,  lfi4. 


Symbolic  import  of  Baptism.  99 

in  newness  of  life."  So  also  ilie  resurrection  spoken  of  in 
Col.  ii.  12,  where  the  resurrection  is  said  to  be  a  resur- 
rection "  through  faith." 

Respecting  the  true  interpretation  of  this  passage,  there 
has  been  great  ditfcrence  of  opinion  among  our  ablest 
commentators;  and  this,  because  of  the  obscurity  of  the 
phrase  "  baptized  for  the  dead."  The  exposition  which 
on  the  whole  we  prefer,  is  that  which  makes  this  phrase 
refer  directly  to  Christ  Jesus,  here  called  "  the  dead,"  on 
the  supposition  made  in  ver.  16,  that  he  is  not  risen  fi'om 
the  dead.  Paul's  argument  then,  would  be  a  proof  of  the 
believer's  resurrection,  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

1.  This  interpretation  suits  the  course  of  Paul's  argu- 
ment in  the  context.  This  chapter  opens  with  the  proof 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  that  he  was  seen  after  his 
resurrection  by  the  twelve,  by  five  hundred  brethren,  the 
greater  part  of  whom  were  living  then,  and  by  Paul  him- 
self.    (Vers.  4-8.) 

Then,  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ  thus  established, 
he  undertakes  the  refutation  of  the  dangerous  error  taught 
by  some  in  Corinth,  that  there  was  no  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  Vers.  12-16.  Pointing  to  the  connection  existing 
between  Christ  and  the  believer,  such  as  that  between  the 
first  fruits  and  the  harvest,  ver.  20,  and  similar  to  that 
between  Adam  and  his  descendants,  vers.  21,  22,  Paul 
argues  that  the  condition  of  the  one  is  determined  by  that 
of  the  other;  and  hence,  concludes  that  "if  there  be  no 
resurrection  of  the  dead"  believer,  "then  Christ  is  not 
raised."  Ver.  16.  Adopting,  for  argument's  sake,  the 
supposition  that  "  Christ  is  not  raised,"  he  shows  the  con- 
sequences which  must  follow  :  1.  "  Your  faith  is  vain ;  ye  are 
yet  in  your  sins,"  i.  e.,  your  faith  is  in  a  dead  person,  who 
cannot  help  you.  Ver.  17.  2.  "  Having  hope  in  Christ, 
in  this  Hfe  only,  we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable."  Ver. 
19.  3.  It  is  folly  to  be  baptized  for  a  dead  one,  as  Christ 
is  on  this  supposition;  "Else  what  shall  they  do,  which 
are  baptized  for  "  (i.  e.,  separated  unto  the  service  of)  "the 
dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  Why  are  they  then 
baptized  for  the  dead  ?  "  Ver.  29.  Considering  from 
ver.  2-1  to  ver.  29  a  parenthesis,  and  such  it  evidently  is, 


100  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

ver.  28  will  follow  immediately  the  other  statements  of 
difficulty,  under  which  the  supposition  that  "  Christ  is  not 
raised,"  in  Paul's  view,  labors.  And  then  Paul  goes  on 
to  answer  certain  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection, and  to  state  that  doctrine  at  large  throughout  the 
remainder  of  the  chapter. 

2.  In  the  original,  the  word  translated  "  the  dead,"  is 
in  the  plural  form.  "  In  Greek  the  plural  form  is  often 
used  where  only  an  individual  or  a  particular  thing  is 
meant."  (See  Stuart's  N.  T.  Grammar,  p.  149.)  And 
grammarians  notice  what  they  call  "  the  plural  of  digni- 
ty," i.  e.,  the  plural  form  used  to  indicate  dignity  in  the 
person  spoken  of.  This  plural  of  dignity  in  "  the  dead," 
if  we  understand  Christ  Jesus  to  be  "  the  dead  "  one  in- 
tended, is  just  in  place  here.  This  peculiarity,  then,  in 
the  original,  when  we  call  to  mind  the  idiom  of  the  Greek, 
affords  strong  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  this  in- 
terpretation. 

We  would  paraphrase  the  passage :  On  the  supposition 
that  Christ  is  not  risen — is  yet  dead,  what  shall  they  do 
who  are  baptized  for  this  dead  one  ?  If  the  dead  rise  not 
at  all,  why  are  we  then  baptized  for  the  dead,  as  we  all 
have  been  when  "baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus?  " 


John's  BajDtisms  in  Jordan.  101 


CHAPTER    III. 

g88.  John's  Baptisms  in  Jordan.  Matt.  iii.  llfi:  Mark,  14  10:  Luke  iii.  3,  21; 
John  i.  28,  X.  40.  ?  39.  John's  Baptisms  at  ^uon.  John,  iii.  23.  g 40.  The 
Baptism  of  the  Euiiuuh.     Acts,  viii.  36-39. 

§  38.  Johns  Baptisms  in  Jordan. 

Matt.  iii.  1,  5,  6,  13,  16.  "  In  those  days  came  John  the 
Baptist,  preaching  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea.  Then 
went  out  to  him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all 
the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized 
of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.  Then 
Cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan,  unto  John,  to 
be  BAPTIZED  of  him.  And  Jesus,  when  he  was 
BAPTIZED,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water." 

Mark  i.  4,  5,  6,  9,  10.  "John  did  baptize  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance,  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all 
the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were 
baptized  in  the  river  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins. 
And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  Jesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John 
in  Jordan.  And  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the 
water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened." 

Luke  iii.  3,  21.  "  And  he  "  (John),  "  came  into  all  the 
country  about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, for  the  remission  of  sins.  Now,  when  all 
the  people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pass,  that  Jesus 
also  being  baptized,  and  praying,  the  Heaven  was 
opened." 

John  i.  28,  x.  40.  "  These  things  were  done  in  Bethaba- 
ra,  beyond  Jordan  where  John  was  baptizing.  "  And 
he,"  (Jesus),  "  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan,  into 
the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized." 


102  TiLC   Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

That  these  baptisms  of  John  were  baptisms  by  immer- 
sion, is  thought  by  Baptist  writers  to  be  fairly  inferable : 
1.  From  the  phraseology  of  the  sacred  text,  "  in  Jordan," 
"  in  the  river  Jordan,"  and  more  especially,  "he  went  up 
outof  thev)ater."  And  2.  From  the  fact  that  they  were 
performed  in  a  river. 

First.  Respecting  the  phraseology  used  by  the  Evange- 
lists, we  ask :  Supposing  that  John  and  Jesus,  in  the  bap- 
tism of  the  latter,  had  together  entered  the  water  to  .such 
a  depth  that  John,  by  reaching  down  his  hand,  could  con- 
veniently obtain  the  water  needed  to  baptize  him  by 
aspersion,  would  not  precisely  the  same  phraseology  have 
been  used  in  recording  the  baptism? — 'Mn  Jordan,"  "in 
the  river  Jordan,"  and  "  he  went  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water." 

That  this  Avas  indeed  the  way  in  which  Jesus  was  bap- 
tized by  John,  is,  we  think,  rendered  more  than  probable 
by  several  considerations. 

1.  With  the  dress  of  the  people  of  Judea,  such  a  bap- 
tism would  be  altogether  natural.  The  principal  articles 
of  dress  worn  by  the  common  people  were,  a  loose  coat  or 
toga,  reaching  down  a  little  below  the  knee,  and  bound  to 
the  body  by  a  girdle,  and  wooden  sandals.  Such  a  dress 
was  that  worn  by  John  at  the  time  of  these  baptisms. 
"  And  the  same  John  had  his  raiment  of  camel's  hair,  and 
a  leathern  girdle  about  his  loins."  (Matt.  iii.  4.)  If 
baptism  were  to  be  administered  in  a  warm  country  like 
Judea,  and  where  such  was  the  dress  of  all  parties,  and 
where  it  was  not  customary  for  the  people  to  carry  drink- 
ing vessels  of  any  kind  with  them  (in  the  army  of  Gideon, 
containing  at  the  time  ten  thousand  men,  there  was  not  a 
single  drinking  vessel  found.  See  Judges,  vii.  5,  6,)  in 
which  water  could  conveniently  be  brought ;  what  more 
natural  than  that  a  baptism  by  aspersion  should  be  ad- 
ministered in  the  way  we  have  supposed  ? 

2.  To  drink  by  raising  water  in  the  hand  to  the  mouth, 
in  the  same  way  in  which  we  have  supposed  John  to  have 
raised  the  water  for  baptizing  Jesus,  is  a  very  common  cus- 
tom in  Eastern  countries  now,  and  has  been  so  from  a  very 
early  date,  as  is  evident  from  the  way  in  which  God  di- 


Johns  Baptisms  in  Jordan.  103 

rects  Gideon  to  select  those  who  are  to  accompany  him 
against  the  Midianites.  See  Judges  vi'i.  5,  6.  The  true 
explanation  of  the  phrase  "  every  one  that  lappeth  of  the 
water  with  his  tongue,  as  a  dog  lappeth,"  undoubtedly  is 
that  these  men,  instead  of  kneeling  down  to  take  a  long 
draught,  or  successive  draughts,  from  the  water,  employed 
their  hand  as  the  dog  employs  his  tongue ;  that  is,  form- 
ing it  into  a  hollow  spoon,  and  dipping  water  with  it  from 
the  stream.  This  mode  of  drinking  is  often  practised  in 
the  East,  and  practice  alone  can  give  that  peculiar  tact 
wdiich  generally  excites  the  wonder  of  travellers.  The 
interchange  of  the  hand  between  the  water  and  the  mouth 
is  managed  with  amazing  dexterity,  and  with  nearly  or 
quite  as  much  rapidity  as  the  tongue  of  the  dog  in  the 
same  act.  The  water  is  not  sucked  out  of  the  hand,  but 
by  a  peculiar  jerk  is  thrown  into  the  mouth  before  the 
hand  is  brought  close  to  it ;  so  that  the  hand  is  approach- 
ing with  a  fresh  supply  almost  before  the  first  has  been 
swallowed.  This  explanation  will  serve  to  show  how  the 
distinction  operated,  and  why  those  who  '  lapped,  putting 
their  hands  to  their  mouths,'  were  considered  to  evince  an 
alacrity  and  readiness  for  action,  which  peculiarly  fitted 
them  for  the  service  in  which  Gideon  was  engaged." 
(Bush's  Notes,     Judges,  vii.  5.) 

3.  As  remarked  in  §  10,  the  oriental  method  of  bath- 
ing, whether  performed  in  a  river  or  in  a  bath,  is  not  by 
immersing  the  body  in  the  water,  but  by  having  the 
water  thrown  upon  the  body  by  an  attendant,  as  all 
travellers  tell  us.  And  such,  we  have  reason  to  believe, 
has  been  the  custom  prevailing  foi  ages :  1.  Because  the 
oriental  nations  are  remarkable  for  seldom  or  never 
changing  a  custom;  and,  2.  Because  the  Scriptural  ac- 
counts of  bathings  performed  in  ancient  days  contain 
hints,  at  least,  of  these  bathings  being  performed  in  this 
way.  Pharaoh's  daughter,  when  she  went  "  to  wash  her- 
self at  the  river,"  was  accompanied  by  her  maidens.  (See 
Ex.  ii.  5.)  Judith,  when  she  washed  herself  in  the  valley 
of  Bethulia,  was  accompanied  by  her  maid.  (See  Judith, 
xiii.  10.)  And  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Tobit,  we  have  an 
account  of  a  young  man  washing  himself  in  a  river,  where 


104  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

the  word  perz-klusasthai,  to  throw  up  the  water  as  in 
waves  around  his  body,  is  used  to  describe  his  washing. 
(Tobit,  vi.  2.) 

In  interpreting  such  a  narrative  as  that  given  us  in  the 
Gospels,  of  John's  baptisms,  we  must  be  guided  by  the 
customs  of  the  country  in  wliich  the  transaction  narrated 
occurred,  and  not  by  the  customs  of  some  other  country : 
and,  in  view  of  these  facts  just  stated,  we  aifirm  that  all 
we  can  learn  of  the  customs  prevalent  in  Judea  at  the 
time  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  favors  the  idea  of  baptism 
by  aspersion  in  the  manner  we  have  supposed,  and  is  ad- 
verse to  the  idea  of  baptism  by  immersion. 

4.  All  the  most  ancient  pictorial  representations  of  the 
baptism  of  Christ  in  Jordan,  and  some  of  them  are  of 
great  antiquity,  represent  the  baptism  as  performed  in 
the  way  we  have  supposed.  The  evidence,  in  questions 
respecting  ancient  manners  and  customs,  afforded  by  con- 
temporary pictures,  is,  on  all  hands,  considered  the  most 
rehable  which  can  be  obtained.  The  pictures  which  have 
been  discovered  in  the  ancient  tombs  of  Egypt  have  shut 
the  mouth  of  many  an  infidel  caviller  at  Moses'  history; 
and  did  the  pictures  of  John's  baptism  of  Jesus  date  back 
to  the  days  of  Christ,  they  would  be  absolutely  decisive  of 
the  question.  They  cannot,  however,  claim  so  great  an- 
tiquity as  this.  From  the  peculiar  circumstances  attend- 
ant upon  the  early  spread  of  Christianity,  and  more  espe- 
cially the  persecutions  which  it  encountered,  if  there  were 
any  such  pictorial  representations  then  made  they  have 
not  come  down  to  us.  Still,  there  are  some  very  ancient 
engraved  plates  and  mosaics  depicting  the  scene  (for  this 
was  a  favorite  subject  of  early  Christian  art),  and  more 
recently,  pictorial  representations  have  been  discovered  in 
the  catacombs  of  Komo,  which,  probably,  date  back  to  the 
time  of  the  primitive  persecutions,  and  these  all  agree  in 
representing  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  Jordan  as  performed 
by  aspersion,  and  in  the  way  we  have  supposed. 

Now,  we  do  not  think  that  the  evidence  of  these  picto- 
rial representations  absolutely  decides  this  matter,  as  it 
would  if  they  were  contemporary  representations.  But 
this,  we  do  think,  must  in  all  fairness  be  allowed,  that 


Johns  Baptisms  in  Jordan.  105 

when  the  language  of  the  record  will  suit  either  method, 
equally  well,  this  evidence  should  come  in  to  determine 
our  choice  between  the  two,  considered  as  a  choice  betioeen 
probabilities. 

Second. — The  fact  that  these  baptisms  by  John  were 
performed  in  a  river,  is  thought,  by  Baptist  writers,  to 
furnish  proof  that  they  were  performed  by  immersion. 
"  What  could  take  him,"  i.  e.,  Jesus,  "  into  the  river  at 
all  if  he  was  only  to  be  sprinkled?  what  could  take  him 
to  the  edge  of  the  water?  what  could  take  him  to  the  . 
river?  No  rational  answer  can  be  given  to  this  on  the 
ground  that  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of  water  is  baptism."  ' 
So  writes  Dr.  Carson.  Let  us  see  if  the  Scriptures  will 
give  us  any  answer  to  these  questions. 

1.  John  was  preaching  in  "  a  wilderness  "  (Matt.  iii.  1), 
and  this  wilderness  extended  down  to  the  very  bank  of 
the  Jordan,  for  thus  only  can  we  explain  the  language  of 
Mark,  "John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness.''  (Mark  i.  4.) 
A  wilderness,  or  a  desert  country,  would  not  contain 
either  wells  or  springs  of  water.  If,  then,  baptism  is  to 
be  administered,  even  by  aspersion,  to  the  multitudes 
who  thronged  about  John — "  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan  "  (Matt.  iii.  5) — to 
receive  baptism  at  his  hands,  we  see  not  how  the  water 
could  be  conveniently  obtained,  excepting  by  all  parties 
going  to  the  river;  and  in  the  warm  climate  of  Judea, 
and  with  the  dress  and  customs  common  at  that  day,  we 
see  not  how  it  could  be  as  conveniently  administered  in 
any  other  way,  as  by  the  parties  walking  into  the  Jordan, 
as  we  have  supposed  them  to  do. 

2.  A  second  reason  why  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  ex- 
ists in  the  nature  of  John's  baptism.  As  we  have  already 
shown  in  §29,  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism, 
but  a  Jewish  baptism.  It  was  a  baptism  administered  in 
Judea,  by  a  Jew,  to  Jews,  and  whilst  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion had  not  as  yet  passed  away.  The  law  of  Moses  was 
still  in  force,  as  is  evident  from  our  Saviour's  teaching 
and  example,  up  to  the  time  of  the  pentecostal  baptism  of 

■  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  373. 
5  = 


106  Tlui  Doctrine  of  Bajytisms. 

the  Apostles  with  "  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,"  Ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Moses,  whatever  an  unclean  person 
touched,  even  water,  was  thereby  rendered  unclean — an 
exception  being  made  in  the  case  of  running  water,  in- 
cluding fountains  and  "  pits  wherein  is  plenty  of  water  " 
(see  §10),  a  kind  of  a  pit  not  to  be  met  with  in  a  "  wil- 
derness." John's  baptisms  were  undoubtedly  of  the  na- 
ture of  purifications,"  i.  e.,  a  separation  of  the  baptized 
unto  God's  service,  as  expectants  of  the  coming  Messiah, 
and  if  these  baptisms  are  to  be  performed  in  accordance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  law,  no  other  place  than 
such  an  one  as  the  "river  Jordan,"  or  ^non  (see  §39), 
will  answer  the  purpose.  And  in  proof  that  this  was  the 
great  reason  why  John  baptized,  first  in  Jordan  and  af- 
terwards at  ^non,  we  ask  the  reader  to  remark  the  fact 
that  after  the  Christian  dispensation  was  fairly  intro- 
duced, we  read  no  more  in  the  Word  of  God  of  baptisms 
"  in  rivers,"  but  in  every  instance,  baptisms  appear  to 
have  been  administered  just  where  the  convert  has  been 
led  to  embrace  the  truth,  as  in  the  case  of  the  three 
thousand  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  and  the  cases  of  Paul, 
of  Cornelius,  and  the  Jailer  at  Philippi. 

Here,  then,  we  have  two  answers  to  Dr.  Carson's  ques- 
.tions,  "  What  could  take  him  to  the  river  if  he  was  only 
to  be  sprinkled?  what  could  take  him  to  the  edge  of  the 
water?"  And  they  are  both  of  them  scriptural  answers 
too,  suggested  by  the  inspired  narrative  itself.  Can  as 
much  be  said  on  behalf  of  immersion,  as  a  reason  for 
John's  baptizing  in  Jordan  ? 

§ 39.  Johns  Baptisms  at  ^non. 

John  iii.  23.  "And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  ^Enon, 
near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  (lite- 
rally, many  waters)  there." 

1.  What  are  we  to  understand  by  the  "  much  water  " 
(or,  as  both  the  words  in  the  Greek  have  the  plural  form, 
a  literal  translation  will  be  "many  waters  ")  here  spoken 
of?    Some  will  answer — simply  a  large  quantity  of  water. 


Joh/is  Baptisms  at  yEnon.  107 

To  this  we  reply;  Scripture  usage  is  at  variance  with 
this  answer.  No  example  can  be  adduced  of  the  use  of 
this  form  of  expression,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  de- 
signate the  quantity  of  water  merely.  It  is  the  waters  of  a 
sea  or  lake,  as  broken  into  waves,  or  the  multiplied 
waters  of  numerous  streams  or  fountains  to  which  alone 
it  is  applied.     Rev.  i.  15 ;  Rev.  xvii.  1,  15. 

The  suggestion  arising  out  of  the  peculiar  form  of  ex- 
pression used  in  the  text,  becomes,  in  our  view,  a  cer- 
tainty, when  we  take  into  account  the  name  of  the  place 
"  J^non."  "  En  or  ^n,"  says  Calmet,  in  his  Bible  Dic- 
tionary, "  signifies  a  fountain,  for  which  reason  we  find  it 
compounded  in  many  names  of  places  ;  e.  g.,  En-Dor,  i.  e., 
the  fountain  of  Dor,  En-Geddi,  i.  e.,  the  fountain  of 
Geddi."  ^Enon  is  the  plural  of  jEn,  and  of  course  means 
fountains.  The  names  of  almost  all  places,  in  early  times, 
were  significant,  and  given  on  account  of  some  remark- 
able event  which  had  happened  there,  or  some  peculiarity 
of  the  place.  How  is  it  likely  that  this  place  ever  got  the 
name  of  iEnon  (the  springs)  excepting  from  the  fact  that 
there  were  many  fountains  there?  Translate  the  passage 
literally,  and  fully,  and  it  will  read — "  John  was  bap- 
tizing at  the  springs  near  to  Salim,  because  there  were 
many  loaters  there."  Does  not  the  interpretation  which 
would  make  these  "  many  waters  "to  be  many  fountains 
or  streams,  appear,  not  simply  the  most  natural,  but  the 
only  natural  one  ? 

2.  But  why  select  this  place,  on  this  account,  for  ad- 
ministering baptism?  Certainly,  not  because  fountains,  or 
streams  near  their  fountains,  are  peculiarly  adapted  to 
immersion.  We  have  read,  in  our  day,  of  baptism  by 
immersion  in  rivers,  in  ponds,  and  in  baptisteries,  but 
never  of  immersions  in  springs  or  fountains.  Nor  can  we 
admit  the  explanation  sometimes  given,  that  the  "  many 
waters "  at  ^non,  made  it  a  very  suitable  place  for 
people  to  congregate  in  large  numbers,  since  they  would 
thus  be  secured  against  all  suffering  from  thirst.  In 
writing  as  the  Apostle  does — "John  was  baptizing  at 
iEnon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there  were  many  waters 
there,"  he  seems,  according  to  fair  principles  of  interpre- 


108  The  Doctrine  of  Bajotisms. 

tation,  to  mention  the  "  many  waters "  there,  as  that 
which  rendered  the  place  a  fit  one  for  administering  bap- 
tism at. 

John  selected  ^non  for  his  later  baptisms,  and  jEnon 
was  a  fit  place  for  those  baptisms,  because  those  baptisms 
were  Jewish  and  not  Christian  baptisms.  The  law  of 
Moses  must  be  complied  with,  and  that  law  required  that 
baptisms  such  as  these  should  be  administered  in  running 
water,  or  in  a  spring,  or  a  pit  wherein  was  plenty  of  water  ; 
and  this,  in  order  that  the  defilement  which  the  water  ac- 
quired by  contact  with  the  person  first  baptized,  might 
not  unfit  it  for  the  baptism  of  the  second. 

§  40.   The  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch. 

Acts  viii.  36-39.  "  And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they 
came  to  a  certain  water  :  and  the  eunuch  said,  See, 
here  is  water ;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 
And  Philip  said.  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart 
thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe 
that  Jesas  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  com- 
manded the  chariot  to  stand  still :  and  they  went 
down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch ; 
and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come  up 
out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away 
Philip,  that  the  eanuch  saw  him  no  more :  and  he 
went  on  his  way  rejoicing." 

This  baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  by  Philip  is 
thought  to  have  been  a  baptism  by  immersion,  from 
Luke's  use  of  the  expressions — ''  And  they  went  down  both 
into  the  water.  And  when  they  were  come  tip  out  of  the 
water."  Admitting  for  the  present,  the  Baptist's  suppo- 
sition, that  the  "  certain  water  here  mentioned  was  some 
large  body  of  water,  such  as  a  river  or  pool ;  we  ask — 
Would  not  Luke  have  used  the  same  forms  of  expression 
in  describing  the  transaction,  had  the  baptism  been  per- 
formed in  the  other  way,  which  all  the  most  ancient  pic- 
torial representations  of  our  Lord's  baptism  point  out  as 
that  which  John  practised  ? 


The  Baptism  of  ike  Eunuch.  109 

Bat  there  are  circumstances  in  this  narrative,  whi<.'h 
lead  us  to  think  that  the  eunuch  was  baptized  without 
either  he  or  PhiUp  entering  the  water. 

The  Greek  word  here  translated,  into,  is  the  same  word 
translated  unto,  in  Matt.  xv.  24,  "  I  am  not  sent  but  unto 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ;  "  Matt.  xxii.  4, 
"  All  things  are  ready  :  come  unto  the  marriage ; "  John 
xi.  31,  "  She  goeth  unto  the  sepulchre,  that  she  may  weep 
there ; "  said  of  Mary,  while  the  stone  which  closed  the 
sepulchre  was  not  yet  taken  away,  v.  39 ;  in  this  very 
chapter  it  is  twice  translated  unto.  "  And  Peter  said  unto 
him,"  ver.  20 ;  "from  Jerusalem  unto  Gaza,"  ver.  26.  And 
the  Greek  word  translated  "out  of,"  is  the  same  trans- 
lated/rom,  in  Matt.  xiii.  49,  "And  sever  the  wicked /ro/?i 
among  the  just,"  Mark  xiii.  27,  "And  shall  gather  together 
his  elect  froyn  the  four  winds;"  Mark  i.  11,  "  And  there 
came  a  voice  frorn  heaven,  saying,  Thou  art  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  From  these  examples 
(and  we  could  easily  adduce  many  more,  did  it  seem 
necessary),  it  is  evident  that  Scriptural  usage  will  autho- 
rize the  translation  either  into  or  unto,  and  out  of  or 
from,  and  consequently  the  translation,  in  any  particular 
instance,  must  be  determined  in  some  way,  before  it  can 
be  appealed  to  in  argument. 

Can  the  sense  in  which  they  are  here  used  be  deter- 
mined from  the  context  ?  The  Baptist  will  say  the 
expressions  "  ivent  down "  and  "  came  up "  call  for  the 
translations  iiito  and  out  of.  The  verbs  of  motion  here  in 
question,  in  the  original  Greek,  are  compounded  with 
the  prepositions,  instead  of  standing  separate,  as  they  do 
in  our  English  version,  A  literal  translation,  preserving 
the  exact  form  of  the  original,  as  far  as  it  can  be  pre- 
served in  a  translation,  is — "  And  he  commanded  the 
chariot  to  stand  still,  and  they  descended  eis  {u7ito  or  into) 
the  water,  that  is,  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  bap- 
tized him.  And  when  they  ascended  ek  {from  or  out  of) 
the  water."  It  is  only  in  our  English  translation,  then, 
that  the  expressions  "  went  down  "  and  "  came  up  "  seem 
to  call  for  the  translations  into  and  out  of. 

If,  however,  as  we  think,  the  "  certain  loater  "  at  which 


no  The  Doctrine,  of  Bapt'isnu. 

tliis  baptism  was  performed,  can  be  shown  to  bave  been, 
in  all  probability,  a  wayside  well  or  fountain,  this  would 
determine  the  translation  of  these  prepositions,  as  men  do 
not  usually  go  into,  but  unto,  and  do  not  come  out  of,  but 
from  a  well  or  fountain. 

Our  reasons  for  thinking  this  "  certain  water  "  was,  in 
all  probability,  a  wayside  well  or  fountain,  are : 

1.  The  name  which  Luke  gives  it — "  A  certain  water," 
(and  this  is  a  literal  translation  of  the  original),  does  not 
imply  anything  more  than  such  a  wayside  well.  This 
fact,  taken  in  connection  with  the  other,  that  he  gives  it 
no  specific  name — rivers,  lakes,  and  even  pools,  ordi- 
narily having  particular  names,  and  names  by  which 
they  are  spoken  of  in  Scripture — naturally  suggests  that 
this  was  some  inconsiderable  wayside  well  or  fountain, 
having  no  particular  name,  and  therefore  called  by  the 
most  general  of  all  names,  "  a  certain  water." 

2.  On  the  way  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  the  way  that 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  were  travelling  when  they  came  to 
this  "  certain  water,"  neither  the  Scriptures  nor  the 
writings  of  modern  travelers  give  us  the  slightest  intima- 
tion of  the  existence  of  any  river  or  other  large  body  of 
water. 

3.  Luke  expressly  tells  us,  that  the  way  they  were 
traveling  was  a  "  desert  "  way  :  "  In  the  way  that  goelh 
down  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  which  is  desert," — not 
Gaza,  but — "  the  way  is  desert."  On  a  desert  way,  it  is 
altogether  improbable  that  any  large  body  of  water  would 
be  met  with.:  whilst  we  know,  from  various  intimations 
in  Scripture,  as  well  as  from  the  testimony  of  modern 
travelers,  that  wayside  wells  are  to  be  met  with  even  in 
desert  countries,  and  that  the  routes  of  travel  are  usually 
arranged  with  reference  to  these  wayside  wells. 

4.  Besides  all  this,  we  think  that  there  is  intimation  in 
the  inspired  record  of  this  event,  of  the  way  in  which  this 
baptism  was  actually  performed.  Let  the  reader  notice 
that  the  subject  of  baptism  is  introduced  by  the  eunuch, 
and  not  by  Philip:  "And  the  eunuch  said,  See,  here 
is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  Was 
there  anything  in  the  passage  of  Scripture  that   Philip 


The  Baptixhi  of  the  Eunuch.  1 1 L 

was  expounding,  which  would  naturally  bring  up  this  sub- 
ject before  the  mind  of  the  eunuch?  The  passage  from 
which  Philip  was  preaching  unto  him,  Jesus,  was  from 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  (See  vers.  32,  33.)  Turning  to 
this  passage  (remembering  that  the  division  of  the  Bible 
into  chapters  is  of  modern  origin,  and  therefore,  of  no  au- 
thority), it  will  be  seen  that  the  passage  commences  with 
the  13th  verse  of  chap.  52,  and  embraces  the  whole  of 
chap.  53;  since  it  is  in  the  first  verse  mentioned,  Isaiah 
introduces  the  subject  of  Christ's  vicarious  sufierings,  the 
subject  of  which  he  continues  to  treat  throughout  the  fol- 
lowing chapter.  Among  the  first  things  that  Isaiah  says 
of  Jesus  is,  "  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations."  (Isai. 
lii.  15.)  Could  Philip  have  expounded  these  words  with- 
out being  led  to  speak  of  baptism — and  then,  how  natural 
would  it  be,  when  they  came  to  "a  certain  water,"  that 
the  eunuch  should  say,  ''  See,  here  is  water,  what  doth 
hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  But  if  Philip  preached  bap- 
tism to  the  eunuch,  from  the  words  "he  shall  sprinkle 
many  nations,"  was  it  likely  to  be  a  baptism  by  immer- 
sion ? 

Whilst,  then,  we  grant  that  the  Greek  preposition  eis 
means  into  as  well  as  to,  and  ek  means  out  of  as  well  as 
from;  for  all  these  reasons,  we  translate  the  passage  un- 
der examination:  "And  they  descended  both  to  the  water, 
that  is,  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.  And 
when  they  ascended  from  the  water;'.'  and  we  express  the 
opinion  that  whilst  there  is  not  absolute  certainty,  yet  all 
the  probabilities  which  can  be  gathered  from  a  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  sacred  narative,  favor  the  idea  that  this 
baptism  of  the  euntich  by  Philip,  was  performed  by 
"sprinkling,"  and  not  by  immersion. 

The  reader  has  .  now  all  the  facts  of  this  case  before 
him;  and  we  ask,  is  there  anything  here  to  authorize  such 
language  as  that  of  Dr.  Carson?  "The  man  who  can 
read  it  (i.  e.,  Acts  viii.  36-39),  and  not  see  immersion  in 
it,  must  have  something  in  his  mind  unfavorable  to  the 
investigation  of  truth.  As  long  as  I  fear  God,  I  cannot, 
for  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  resist  the  evidence  of 
this  single  document.    Nav,  had  I  no  more  conscience  than 


112  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Satan  himself,  I  could  not,  as  a  scholar,  attempt  to  expel 
immersion  from  this  account.  All  the  ingenuity  of  all 
the  critics  in  Europe  could  not  silence  the  evidence  of  this 
passage.  Amidst  the  most  violent  perversion  that  it  can 
sustain  on  the  rack,  it  will  still  cry  out  immersion,  hn- 
Tnersion!  ^"  Is  this  the  calm  expression  of  a  conclusion 
intelligently  reached?  or  is  it  the  blustering  dogmatism 
and  denunciation  of  the  prejudiced  advocate  of  a  weak 
cause  ? 

'  Carson  on  Baptism,  p   128. 


TJie  Baptism  of  the  Tiirce  Tlioumad.  1 13 


CHAPTER     IV. 

§41.  The  Baptism  of  the  three  thousand,  Ai-ts  ii.  38,  41.  §  42.  Paul's  Baptism 
Acts  ix.  17, 18;  xxii.  1216.  §43.  The  baptism  of  Cornelius,  Acts  x.  44-48 
g  44.  The  Baptism  of  the  Jailer,  Acts  xvi.  a2-34. 

§  41.   The  Baptism  of  the  three  thousand. 

Acts,  ii.  vers.  38,  41.  "  Tlien  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent 
and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  oi'  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  they  that 
gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized:  and  the 
same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three 
thousand  souls." 

In  this  record,  it  appears:  1.  That  the  three  thousand 
persons  here  mentioned,  were  baptized  immediately  upon 
the  close  of  Peter's  sermon ;  and,  of  course,  in  but  a  part 
of  a  day ;  and  2.  That  these  baptisms  were  administered 
in  the  same  place  where  that  sermon  had  been  preached, 
i.  e.,  at  the  door  of  the  house  in  which  the  Apostles  were, 
when  they  themselves  were  baptized  "  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire;"  at  the  least,  there  is  no  intimation 
given  by  Luke  of  their  having  quitted  that  place.  Tak- 
ing nothing  for  granted,  now,  but  what  appears  in  the  sa- 
cred record,  the  baptism  of  these  three  thousand,  if  per- 
formed by  aspersion,  would  all  seem  very  natural;  the 
water-pots  which  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  keep  near 
the  entrance  of  their  houses  for  purification  (see  John  iii. 
6),  would  have  furnished  a  convenient  and  abundant  sup- 
ply of  water  for  baptizing  the  whole  three  thousand  in 
this  way.  But  in  supposing  they  were  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, the»e  is  sorio'iis  difficulty,  both  in   the  fact  that 


114  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

so  large  a  number  were  baptized  in  so  short  a  time,  and 
in  the  fact  that  no  mention  is  made  of  their  having  quit- 
ted the  place  where  they  had  listened  to  Peter's  sermon, 
in  order  that  the  baptism  might  be  performed. 

This  last-mentioned  fact  would  not  have  claimed,  fairly, 
as  much  attention  as  it  does,  were  it  not  true  that  in  the 
case  of  the  traveling  eunuch,  in  circumstances  in  which  no 
convenient  vessel  for  bringing  the  water  is  likely  to  be  at 
hand  (for  in  eastern  countries  travelers  do  not  ordinarily 
carry  drinking  vessels  with  them,  as  illustrated  in  the  case 
of  Gideon's  ten  thousand  men,  Judges  vii,  5,  6),  we  are 
expressly  informed  that  they  both  left  the  chariot,  "and 
descended  to  the  water;"  whilst,  in  the  baptism  of  these 
three  thousand,  the  baptism  of  Paul,  the  baptism  of  Cor- 
nelius, and  that  of  the  Philippian  jailer,  all  which  were 
performed  in  cities,  or  in  houses,  where  water  vessels  must 
have  been  at  hand,  no  intimation  is  given  of  the  parties 
having  quitted  the  spot,  for  baptism.  But,  in  every  in- 
stance, the  natural  interpretation  of  the  narrative  is,  that 
the  baptisms  were  performed  just  where  the  parties  to  be 
baptized  first  believed  in  Christ  Jesus. 

§  42.  Paul's  Baptism. 

Acts  ix.,  vers.  17,  18;  xxii.,  vers.  12-16.  "And  Ananias 
went  his  way,  and  entered  into  the  house:  and  put- 
ting his  hands  on  him,  said,  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord 
(even  Jesus  that  appeared  unto  thee  in  the  way  as 
thou  earnest)  hath  sent  me,  that  thou  mightest  re- 
ceive thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes,  as  it  had 
been  scales  :  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and 
arose  and  was  baptized."  Acts  xxii,  vers.  12-16. 
"  And  one  Ananias,  a  devout  man  according  to  the 
law,  having  a  good  report  of  all  the  Jews  which  dwelt 
there,  came  unto  me,  and  stood,  and  said  unto  me, 
Brother  Saul,  receive  thy  sight.  And  the  same 
hour  I  looked  upon  him.  And  he  said,  The  God  of 
our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldst 
know  his  will,  and   see  that  J.ust  One,  and  shouldst 


JPaur^  Baj^ilsni.  115 

hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth.  For  thou  shalt  be  his 
witness  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and 
heard.  And  now  why  tarriest  thou?  arise  and  be 
BAPTIZED,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord." 


Let  the  reader  call  to  mind  now  the  facts  in  Paul's 
case,  as  we  learn  them  from  Luke's  narrative.  He  had 
been  struck  blind,  by  Jesus  appearing  to  him  in  a  light 
above  the  brightness  of  the  mid-day  sun ;  and  in  this  con- 
dition, led  by  his  attendants,  he  had  come  to  the  house  of 
Judas,  in  the  city  of  Damascus.  Here  he  had  remained 
three  days,  blind,  neither  eating  nor  drinking,  but  en- 
gaged in  prayer,  when  Ananias  was  sent  of  God  to  him. 
Bead  now  the  inspired  record  of  his  baptism.  And  is 
not  this  the  fair  and  natural  interpretation  of  it;  that 
Paul  is  found  of  Ananias,  kneeling  or  sitting  down,  and 
engaged  in  prayer,  and  that  whilst  he  is  yet  in  this  posi- 
tion, his  blindness  is  miraculously  removed;  and  then, 
immediately,  he  arises  from  his  knees,  and  is  there 
baptized  upon  the  spot,  and  baptized  in  a  standing  po- 
sition ? 

This  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  Luke's  language, 
as  it  appears  in  our  English  version.  In  the  original,  the 
language  is  more  definite.  On  the  expression  "  arise  and 
be  baptized"  (literally,  standing  up  be  baptized),  and  "  he 
arose  and  was  baptized"  (literally,  standing  up  he -was 
baptized),  Dr.  J.  H.  Ptice  remarks  correctly:  "According 
to  the  idiom  of  the  Greek  language,  these  two  words  do 
not  make  two  different  commands,  as  the  English  reader 
would  suppose,  when  he  read  1,  arise;  2,  be  baptized. 
But  the  participle  (arise,  literally,  standing  up)  simply 
modifies  the  signification  of  the  verb,  or  rather  is  used  to 
complete  the  action  of  the  verb ;  and,  therefore,  instead  of 
warranting  the  opinion  that  Paul  rose  up,  went  out,  and 
was  immersed,  it  definitely  and  precisely  expresses  his 
posture  when  he  received  baptism. "  ^ 

>  The  ramr.hleteer.     No.  1.  p.  89. 


116  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms, 


§  43.  Baptism  of  Cornelius. 

Acts  X.  vers.  44-48.  "While  Peter  yet  spake  these 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which 
heard  the  word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision 
which  believed,  were  astonished,  as  many  as  came 
with  Peter,  because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was 
poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  they 
heard  them  speak  with  tongues,  and  magnify  God. 
Then  answered  Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water, 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  com- 
manded them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord." 

This  discourse  of  Peter's,  thus  followed  by  the  outpour- 
ing of  the  Spirit,  was  delivered  in  the  house  of  Cornelius 
(see  ver.  27),  and  was  addressed  to  Cornelius  and  "his 
kinsmen  and  near  friends,"  whom  he  had  assembled 
there.  "  While  Peter  was  yet  speaking,"  i.  e.,  before  he 
had  brought  his  discourse  to  its  intended  close,  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word."  Thus 
were  they  baptized  by  the  Lord,  as  foretold  by  John : 
"He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire."  Peter  seeing  this,  and  prepared  by  his  vision  at 
Joppa  to  understand  it  aright,  at  once  asks,  (not  as  need- 
ing or  desiring  an  answer,  but  as  strongly  expressing  the 
conclusion  to  which  he  had  come),  "  Can  any  man  forbid 
water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?  And  he  com- 
manded them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

Here,  then,  as  in  the  cases  last  examined,  the  natural, 
and  the  only  natural  interpretation  of  the  language  is, 
that  these  baptisms  were  administered  upon  the  spot ; 
and  as  God  had  baptized  them  by  "pouring  out,"  by 
causing  to  "fall  on  them  "  the  visible  symbol  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  that  God's  servants  baptized  them  also  by  "pour- 
ing out "  water,  the  symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  influences 
upon  them. 


Baptiani  of  the  Jailer.  117 


§  44.  Baptism  of  the  Jailer. 

Acts  xvi.  32-34.  "  x\nd  they  spake  unto  him  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And 
he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway.  And  when  he  had  brought  them  into 
his  house,  he  set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  be- 
lieving in  God,  with  all  his  house." 

There  is  a  slight  apparent  discrepancy  between  the 
parts  of  this  account,  as  it  appears  in  our  English  version, 
which  does  not  exist  in  the  Greek.  It  is  first  said,  "  And 
they  s]-»ake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that 
were  in  his  house,"  thus  plainly  implying  that  the  address 
of  Paul  and  Silas  was  delivered  in  the  house.  And  then 
afterwards,  it  is  added — "  And  when  he  had  bi'ought 
them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before  them,"  as  if  they 
had  not  entered  the  house  before.  In  the  original,  there 
are  here  two  different  words  translated  by  the  one  Eng- 
lish word  hoicse.  The  one  used  in  ver.  32  is  the  more 
comprehensive  term,  including  not  only  the  house  (in  our 
English  sense  of  that  word),  but  also  the  out-houses  and 
servants'  apartments,  which,  in  most  ancient  habitations, 
surrounded  the  house  proper,  and  enclosed  it  with  its 
court.  The  one  used  in  ver.  34  is  a  term  corresponding 
more  exactly  to  our  word  house. 

Bearing  this  distinction  in  mind,  a  fair  interpretation 
of  Luke's  narrative  will  require  us  to  understand  that  the 
baptism  of  the  jailer  "  and  all  his  "  was  performed  in  the 
court,  and  this  straightwai/  (literally,  o?i  the  spot).  And 
then,  that  after  this,  they  were  taken  into  the  house  proper, 
and  there  refreshed.  Here,  then,  we  have  still  another 
instance  of  baptism  upon  the  spot  where  the  convert  has 
received  Christ,  and  where  we  have  no  intimation  of  there 
being  water  for  baptism  by  immersion. 

Some  Baptist  writers  have  attempted  to  break  the 
force  of  the  argument,  from  these  several  baptisms  upon 
the  spot,  by  telling  us  of  the  dependence  in  which  the  in- 


118  •  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

habitants  of  Jerusalem  were,  upon  the  rains  of  heaven  for 
water  needed  for  daily  use;  and,  consequently,  of  the 
large  number  of  cisterns  which  had  been  built  in  that 
city.  The  evidence  of  the  existence  of  such  numerous 
cisterns  in  Jerusalem  is  very  questionable,  to  say  the  least 
of  it.  But,  granting  their  existence,  it  matters  not,  for 
our  present  purpose,  in  how  great  numbers.  Of  what  use 
will  cisterns  in  Jerusalem  be,  for  immersing  Paul  at  Da- 
mascus, or  Cornelius  at  Caesarea,  or  the  jailer  at  Philippi — 
not  one  of  which  places  is  even  in  Judea  ?  Whilst,  in  the 
case  of  the  only  one  of  these  baptisms  which  did  take 
place  at  Jerusalem — the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost — the  number  is  so  great  that  even 
Baptist  writers  are  not  satisfied  with  the  cisterns,  but  ima- 
gine the  multitude  to  have  gone  to  some  such  pool  as  that 
of  Bethesda  for  immersion. 


Sammuig   Up — Conclusion.  119 


SUMMING   UP — CONCLUSION. 

The  arguments  by  which  the  Baptist  would  estabhsh 
his  position,  that  immersion  is  the  one,  only  mode  of 
baptism,  as  stated  in  §  33,  are — from  1,  The  meaning 
of  the  word  baptizo ;  2,  The  emblematic  import  of  bap- 
tism ;  and  3,  The  practice  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

The  reader  has  now  before  him  all  that  can  be  gathered 
from  the  Word  of  God  on  these  several  points.  In  our 
examination,  no  passage  of  Scripture  calculated  to  throw 
light  upon  this  subject  has  been  omitted.  Let  us  bring 
together  now  the  results  of  this  examination. 

First.  T7ie  argument  fro7n  the  meaning  of  the  word 
BAPTIZO.  Affirming  that  "  baptizo  is  a  specific  term ;  that 
it  has  but  one  signification ;  that  it  alw^ays  signifies  to 
dip,  never  expressing  anything  but  mode  " — the  Baptist 
argues  that  to  speak  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and  must  so  have  presented 
itself  to  the  mind  of  every  one  to  whom  the  command 
"  repent  and  be  baptized  "  was  addressed,  in  the  days  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles — just  as  we,  at  the  present  day, 
would  see  a  contradiction  in  terms  in  speaking  of  immer- 
sion by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

In  Part  I.  we  have  examined  every  instance  of  the  use 
of  the  word  baptizo  in  the  Scriptures ;  and,  as  the  result 
of  that  examination,  have  found  that,  in  the  Word  of  God, 
baptizo  is  always  used  as  a  religious  term,  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament sense  of  the  word  purify,  and  never  in  the  sense 
of  dip  or  immerse.  The  Baptist  argument  for  immersion, 
from  the  meaning  of  this  word,  then,  when  the  falsity  of 
the  assumption  upon  which  it  rests  is  made  to  appear, 
falls. 


120  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

But  W3  stop  not  liere.  AVe  admit  that,  could  it  be 
shown  that  baptize  did  signify  to  dip  and  to  dip  only,  this 
would,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  create  a  strong  presumption 
ill  favor  of  dipping,  as  the  truly  primitive,  apostolic  mode 
of  baptism.  And  admitting  this,  we  have  a  right  to 
claim — when  it  is  shown  (and  this  we  think  has  been 
done)  that  baptize  is  always  used,  in  the  Word  of  God,  in 
the  sense  of  katharizo,  to  purify — on  this  ground,  a  strong 
presumption  in  favor  of  a  variety  in  mode  being  allowed 
in  baptism,  such  as  all  admit  was  allowed  in  the  puri- 
fications practised  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

Second.  T/ie  arganient  from  the  emblematic  imp)ort 
of  bapt'ism.  Assuming  that  in  baptism  we  have  an  em- 
blem, not  of  spiritual  purification,  or  regeneration,  alone, 
but  also  of  "death,  burial,  and  resurrection,"  it  is  hence 
inferred  that  as  in  imrasrsion  we  have  the  aptest  repre- 
sentation of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  baptism  must 
have  been  administered  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and 
oaght  to  be  administered  in  our  day,  by  immersion. 

1.  Understanding  this  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
to  be  spiritual — and  this  is  the  only  sense  which  the  text 
will  admit  of  in  Eom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  the  passages 
chiefly  relied  upon  by  the  Baptist — we  have  seen  that  the 
argument  rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that  spiritual 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  was  something  different 
from  regeneration;  whereas,  as  the  terms  are  used  in 
Scripture,  they  moan  one  and  the  same  thing.  §§  3-1, 
35,  36. 

2.  Understanding  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  to 
be  that  of  the  believer  (and  Baptist  authors  sometimes 
write  as  if  this  were  what  they  intended),  the  argument 
rests  upon  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  alone,  a  passage  of  somewhat 
doubtful  interpretation ;  but  in  which  all  the  probabilities 
of  the  case  point  us  to  the  death  of  Christ  as  that  to 
which  Paul  refers  in  this  expression,  "  baptized  for  the 
dead : "  and  this,  not  as  something  symbohzed  in  bap- 
tism, but  as  something  which  Paul  has  simply  supposed 
to  be  true,  in  the  course  of  his  argument  for  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  believer.  §  37. 

Dr.  Carson  writes  :  "Had  no  emblem  bat  that  of  puri- 


Sui/wiing  Up — CoadusLOii.  121 

fication  been  intended  in  this  ordinance,  we  do  not  say 
that  immersion,  would  be  either  essential  or  preferable." 
(p.  381.)  This  might  be  fliirly  claimed  by  us,  even  if  not 
expressly  admitted  by  the  Baptist.  We  have  seen  that  ac- 
cording to  Scripture,  no  emblem  but  that  of  purification  is 
intended  to  be  included  in  this  ordinance ;  and  hence,  we 
conclude  in  Dr.  Carson's  own  words,  "  that  immersion  is 
neither  essential  nor  preferable  "  to  pouring  or  sprinkling 
as  a  mode  of  baptism. 

Third.  In  our  examination  of  the  practice  in  the  days 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  as  that  practice  is  to  be 
gathered  from  the  inspired  narrative  of  baptisms  then  ad- 
ministered, we  have  found : 

1.  That  the  baptisms  administered  by  John  tlie  Baptist 
and  by  Christ's  disciples,  before  our  Lord's  death,  were  not 
Christian,  but  Jewish  baptisms ;  at  least,  in  so  fir  as  is 
implied  in  their  being  administered  in  Judea,  to  Jews,  by 
John  and  Christ's  disciples,  themselves  Jews,  and  whilst 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  had  not  as  yet  passed 
away — the  law  of  Moses,  as  decided  by  Christ  himself, 
being  yet  in  force.  (§§  29,  38.)  Even  should  we  admit, 
then,  that  they  were  baptisms  by  immersion,  this  admis- 
sion could  affect  our  decision  of  the  question  respecting 
the  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  only  as  it  would  render  it 
probable  that  the  Apostles  afterward  practised  the  samo 
mode ;  the  mode  of  John's  baptism  can  no  more  bind  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  under  this  our  Christian  dispensation, 
than  that  of  other  Jewish  baptisms  (the  "divers  bap- 
tisms "  of  which  Paul  speaks  in  his  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews), many  of  which  were  undoubtedly  performed  by 
sprinkling. 

2.  But  we  do  not  admit  that  these  baptisms  of  John's 
and  Christ's  disciples  were  baptisms  by  immersion.  So 
far  from  it,  we  think  that  the  true  reason  why  these  bap- 
tisms were  performed  in  Jordan  and  "  at  ^non  (the 
Springs)  near  to  SaUm,"  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
they  were  Jewish  baptisms,  Moses'  law  requiring  the  puri- 
fication, in  such  cases,  to  be  effected  in  running  water. 
§§38,  39. 

3.  The  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  the  only  Christian  bap- 


122  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

tism,  in  the  account  of  which  the  Baptist  finds  any  evi- 
dence of  immersion,  appears  to  have  been  administered  at 
a  wayside  well  or  fountain — and  in  so  far  as  anything  can 
be  learned  from  the  Scriptures,  to  have  been  a  baptism  by 
sprinkling.     §  40. 

4.  The  other  baptisms  recorded  in  the  Scripture;  viz., 
the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, that  of  Paul,  that  of  Cornelius,  and  that  of  the  Jailer 
at  Philippi,  a,ll  appear  to  have  been  administered  upon  the 
spot,  where  the  person  baptized  first  believed  in  Christ 
Jesus;  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  private  house 
at  Csesarea  and  Damascus,  in  the  prison-court  at  Philippi, 
and  that  of  Paul,  at  the  least,  to  have  been  administered 
with  the  baptized  person  in  a  standing  posture.  All  these 
circumstances,  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  of  baptism  by 
immersion,  accord  well  with  that  of  baptism  by  sprinkling 
or  pouring.     §§41,  42,  43,  44. 

5.  Even  admitting  (and  we  admit  it  simply  for  argu- 
ment's sake)  that  it  could  be  clearly  shown  that  the  Apos- 
tles did  baptize  by  immersion ;  this,  of  itself,  could  not 
bind  the  faith  of  the  Church,  unless  the  principle  were  es- 
tablished that  mere  mode  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a 
sacrament,  a  principle  which  no  Christian  church  will  ad- 
mit to  be  true.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  administered  by  Christ  to  his  disciples,  was 
administered  at  night,  the  communicants  lying  upon 
couches  around  a  table.  On  these  points  no  question  has 
ever  been  raised..  Unless,  then,  some  good  reason  can  be 
given  why  mode  is  essential  to  one  sacrament  and  not  to 
the  other,  consistency  requires  of  the  Baptist  that  he  first 
administer  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  mode  in  which  he  ad- 
mits that  Christ  administered  it,  ere  he  demand  of  others 
that  they  administer  baptism  in  that  mode,  alone,  in 
which  it  was  administered  in  Apostolic  times. 

.  The  conclusion  in  this  whole  matter  to  which  we  come  is— 
1.  There  is  nothing  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize, 
nor  in  the  emblematical  import  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  to 
authorize  the  belief  that  any  particular  mode  of  applying 
the  water  to  the  person  of  the  baptized,  is  essential  to  the 
validity  of  baptism. 


Summing  Up — Conclimon.  123 

2.  Whilst  WG  cannot  determine,  with  absolute  certain- 
ty, whether  sprinlcUng,  pouring,  or  immersion,  was  the 
mode  of  baptism  practised  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  immersion  is  the  least  probable  of  the  three. 

3.  To  require  immersion  in  order  to  admission  to  the 
church  of  God,  is  to  infringe  upon  that  "liberty  where- 
with Christ  hath  made  his  people  free,"  and  to  "teach  for 
doctrine  the  commandments  of  men."  And  to  exclude 
from  the  Lord's  table,  the  Lord's  people,  because  they 
have  not  been  immersed,  is  to  bring  upon  the  soul  the 
guilt  of  the  sin  of  schism. 


124  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


SUPPLEMENTAEY   NOTE. 

THE   PEACTICE   OF    IMMERSION   IN  EARLY   TIMES. 

Baptist  authors,  generally,  attach  a  great  deal  of  im- 
portance to  the  fact  that  immersion  was  practised  in  the 
Church  at  a  very  early  age.  The  author  of  the  article  on 
^'Baptism,"  in  the  Encyclopedia  of  Keligious  Knowledge, 
writes:  ''On  this  point  there  is  overwhelming  evidence. 
The  best  ecclesiastical  historians — Mosheim,  Waddington, 
Neander,  &c. — affirm  that  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church  was  immersion."  And  this  fact  he  makes  one  of 
his  four  arguments  for  immersion,  the  other  three  being — 
The  meaning  of  the  word  hajDtizo;  The  emblematic  im- 
port of  baptism ;  and.  The  practice  of  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles. 

If  by  "  the  primitive  Church "  we  understand  the  an- 
cient, as  contradistinguished  from  the  Apostolic  Church — 
i.  e.,  the  Church  in  the  third  century,  and  later — the  cor- 
rectness of  the  above  statement  will  not  be  called  in  ques- 
tion by  any  one.  But  why  do  many  Baptist  writers  keep 
back  the  fact,  established  by  precisely  t/ie  same  authority, 
that  this  immersion  was  performed  with  the  person  of  the 
baptized  naked  ? 

Dr.  Carson,  in  his  reply  to  Dr.  Miller,  admits  that  im- 
mersion was  received  naked,  in  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 
turies, and  does  not  deny  that  such  was  the  fact  at  an 
earlier  date.     (Carson  on  Baptism,  pp.  380,  381.) 

The  Baptist  historian,  Robinson,  in  his  "  History  of 
Baptism"  (a  book  written  by  request  of  the  Baptist  min- 
isters of  London),  is  more  ingenuous.  His  words  are: 
"The  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked.  Nothing  is 
easier  than  to  give  proof  of  this,  by  quotations  from  the 


Immersion  in  Early  Times.  125 

authentic  writings  of  men  who  administered  baptism,  and 
who  certainly  knew  in  what  way  they  themselves  per- 
formed it.  There  is  no  ancient  historical  fact  better  au- 
thenticated than  this.  This  evidence  does  not  go  on  the 
meaning  of  the  single  word  naked;  for  then  the  reader 
might  suspect  allegory;  but  on  many  facts  reported,  and 
many  reasons  assigned  for  the  practice." 

Wall,  in  his  "History  of  Baptism,"  writes:  "The  an- 
cient Christians,  when  they  were  baptized  by  immersion, 
were  all  baptized  naked,  ivhether  they  were  vien,  ivomen, 
or  children." 

As  one  reads  such  statements  as  these,  the  question  will 
arise — Can  these  things  be  so?  Is  there  not  some  mis- 
take about  this  matter?  Is  it  credible  that  in  the  East, 
where  the  most  rigid  notions  of  womanly  propriety  have 
prevailed  from  time  immemorial,  ico7nen  received  baptism 
naked  ?  Is  such  a  practice  as  this  consistent  with  that 
"modesty"  which  no  book  more  emphatically  than  the 
New  Testament  enjoins  upon  woman?  To  these  questions 
we  do  not  hesitate  to  return  the  answer — The  thing  is  in- 
credible; such  a  practice  is  utterly  at  variance  with 
Christian  modesty  in  women. 

The  true  explanation  of  the  matter,  we  believe,  is  that 
given  by  Taylor,  in  his  "Facts  and  Evidences,"  viz..  That, 
at  an  early  date,  there  was  added  to  the  simple  baptismal 
rite,  as  practised  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  a  washing  of 
the  whole  body  in  water,  as  a  preparation  for  the  baptism 
proper — ^just  as  there  was  added  the  anointing  of  the  body 
with  oil,  and  the  clothing  of  the  person  in  a  white  gar- 
ment, as  rites  following  upon  the  baptism,  at  almost  if  not 
quite  as  early  a  date.  This  preparatory  washing  of  the 
body  was  performed  in  a  bath,  and,  in  the  case  of  women, 
with  none  but  women  present;  and  this  it  was  which  was 
performed  by  immersion,  and  with  the  person  naked — 
the  baptism  proper  being  afterwards  administered  in  pres- 
ence of  the  church,  and  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

In  support  of  this  explanation  we  urge : 

1.  With  the  peculiar  attachment  of  the  Jewish  converts 
to  the  law  of  Moses,  the  addition  of  an  ablution,  prepara- 
tory to  baptism,  would  be  one  of  the  most  natural  changes 


126  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

which  could  he  made  in  the  apostolic  rite  of  baptism. 
They  regarded  baptism  as,  essentially,  a  purification  ;  and 
a  preparatory  washing  was,  in  many  instances,  enjoined 
in  Moses'  law ;  e.  g.,  in  the  cleansing  of  a  leper  (Lev. 
xiv.),  the  cleansings  to  be  effected  by  the  water  of  separa- 
tion (Numb,  xix.) 

2.  There  is  nothing  in  any  of  the  statements  made  by 
ancient  writers,  and  relied  upon  to  prove  the  early  prac- 
tice of  immersion  (in  so  far  as  we  have  seen),  inconsistent 
with  this  explanation,  but  much  to  favor  it. 

3.  In  the  Abyssinian  Church,  at  the  present  day,  a 
washing  of  the  whole  body,  preparatory  to  baptism,  is 
practised,  the  baptism  itself  being  performed  by  affusion 
(See  Taylor's  Facts  and  Evidences,  pp.  153,  154).  The 
Abyssinian  Church  being  that  one  of  the  ancient  churches 
which  has  for  ages  been  almost  entirely  cut  off  from  all 
communication  with  other  parts  of  the  world,  is,  on  this 
account,  the  one  most  likely  to  have  retained  the  practice 
prevailing  in  early  times. 

4.  The  testimony  of  Epiphanius,  Bishop  of  Constantia, 
who  wrote  during  the  fourth  century,  when  speaking  of 
the  office  of  the  deaconess :  "  There  are  also  deaconesses  in 
the  Church;  but  this  office  was  not  instituted  as  a  priest- 
ly function,  nor  has  it  any  interference  with  priestly  ad- 
ministrations;  but  it  was  instituted  for  the  purpose  of 
preserving  a  due  regard  to  the  modesty  of  the  female  sex, 
espeeially  at  the  tiini  of  hajHisTnal  washing,  and  while  the 
person  of  the  looman  is  naked,  that  she  may  not  be  seen 
by  the  men  perfornfiing  the  sacred  service,  but  by  her  only 
who  is  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  woman  during  the 
time  she  was  naked."  (Epiphanius,  as  quoted  by  Taylor 
in  his  "Facts  and  Evidences,"  p.  168.) 

We  refer  to  this  matter  here,  not  as  an  argument  for 
baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion — for  our  purpose  is  to 
offer  as  argument  nothing  but  what  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves furnish — but, 

1.  That  the  Baptist  argument  from  the  early  practice 
of  the  Church— an  argument  based,  as  we  think,  upon  a  mis- 
apprehension of  the  facts  recorded — may  not  prejudice  the 
mind  of  the  reader  against  the  reception  of  Scripture  truth. 


Immersion  in  Early  Tunes.  127 

2.  To  show  tlie  reader  the  way  in  which  immersion  has 
come  to  bo  substituted  for  sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  prac- 
tised by  the  apostles.     And, 

3.  As  affording  a  strong  incidental  confirmation  of  the 
correctness  of  the  definition  we  have  given  to  haptizo 
when  used  as  a  religious  term,  viz.,  to  cleanse  or  purify. 


PART    III. 
THE    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


6*  129 


THE 


SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 


3  43.  Statement  of  the  Question,  and  of  the  Arguments  relied  on  by  Baptists  and 
Pedo-Bapticts. 

To  the  question,  To  whom  is  Christian  baptism  to  be 
administered  ? 

The  Baptist  replies :  To  such  as  make  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  Christ,  and  to  such  only. 

The  Presbyterian  replies:  "  Not  only  those  that  do  ac- 
tually profess  faith  in  and  obedience  unto  Christ,  but  also 
the  infants  of  one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to  be  bap- 
tized."    (Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  28.) 

And  here  we  ask  the  reader  to  notic"e — 

1,  With  respect  to  adults  who  have  not  been  baptized 
in  infancy,  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion.  They  are  to 
be  baptized  upon  a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ 
alone.  Such  must  have  been  the  case  with  all  the  con- 
verts on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  for  some  time  after- 
wards, since  proper  Christian  baptism  was  never  adminis- 
tered before  that  time. 

2.  The  only  point  in  so  far  as  the  subjects  of  baptism 
are  concerned,  on  which  the  Baptist  and  Presbyterian  dif- 
fer, is — Does  the  word  of  God  teach  that  Chinstian  bap- 
tism is  to  be  administered  to  infant  children,  where  one  or 
both  the  parents  are  professed  believers  ? 

The  grounds  upon  which  the  Baptist  seeks  to  establish 
his  position  are — 

131 


132  The  Suhjccts  of  Baptinn. 

1.  The  commission  given  by  Christ  to  his  Church,  when 
about  to  be  talcen  in  bodily  presence  from  his  disciples, 
and  recorded  in  Mark  xvi.  15,  16.  This  commission,  he 
affirms,  is  given  in  terms  which  exclude  the  idea  of  the 
administration  of  baptism  to  infants. 

2.  The  import  of  baptism,  as  the  ordinance  is  explained 
in  the  AVord  of  God.  This,  he  affirms,  is  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  its  administration  to  any  but  believers. 

The  arguments  by  which  we  shall  seek  to  establish  the 
position  assumed  in  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith, 
are : 

1.  Assuming  that  Christian  baptism  is  the  initiatory 
rite  of  the  Church,  under  the  Christian  dispensation  (and 
this  the  Baptist  maintains  as  zealously  as  we  do),  and  that 
the  infant-membership  in  the  Church  was  established  of 
God,  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  (and  this  we 
shall  prove  from  Scripture,  although  but  few  Baptists  will 
deny  it)  ;  we  shall  attempt  to  show,  1.  That  the  visible 
Church  of  God  has  ever  been  one;  and  consequently,  fis 
the  rite  of  infant-membership  in  that  Church  has  not  been 
repealed,  it  must  continue.  And  2.  That  this  right  of 
infant-membership — and  hence,  of  infant  baptism — was 
expressly  recognized  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

2.  The  express  mention  made  in  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures,  of  family  baptisms. 

Other  arguments  have  been  adduced,  some  of  them  of 
great  weight,  from  the  experience  of  the  Church  at  the 
present  day,  the  history  of  the  Church,  especially  in  primi- 
tive times,  and  what  are  thought  to  be  the  proprieties  of 
the  case.  As,  however,  our  purpose  is  to  give  a  purely 
Scriptural  discussion  of  the  question,  settling  it,  if  at  all, 
upon  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God  alone,  we  shall 
take  no  notice  of  these  arguments,  as  urged  on  either  side. 


Christ's  Commission  to  His  Church.  133 


CHAPTER  II. 


J48.    Christ's  commission   to   his  Church,  Matt,  xxvlii.  19,  20;  Mark  ivi.  15, 16; 
Luke  xxiv.  47-i9. 

§4G.  Matt,  xxviii. 

Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, BAPTIZING  tliem  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded yoa :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
nnto  the  end  of  the  world."     Amen. 

Mark  xvi.  15, 16.  "  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved : 
but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

Luke  xxiv.  47-19.  "And  "  (Jesus  said  unto  them,  ver. 
46)  "  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at 
Jerusalem.  And  ye  are  witnesses'  of  these  things. 
And  behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you ;  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye 
be  endued  with  power  from  on  high." 

Eemarking  upon  Mark  xvi.  16,  Dr.  Carson  writes — "  I 
am  willing  to  hang  the  whole  controversy  on  this  passage. 
If  I  had  not  another  passage  in  the  Word  of  God,  I  would 
engage  to  refute  my  opponents  from  the  words  of  this 
commission  alone.  I  will  risk  the  credit  of  my  under- 
standing, on  my  success  in  showing  that  according  to  this 
commission  believers  only  are  to  be  baptized."  * 

'  Carson  on  r>;ipti?m,  p.  169. 


134  The  Subjects  of  Bajytism. 

The  Baptist  reasons  upon  this  passage,  thus :  Baptism 
is  here  made  consequent  upon  faith — "  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  And  as  no  one  pretends 
that  infants  can  exercise  faith  in  Christ,  the  faith  here 
spoken  of,  this  passage  prohibits  their  baptism. 

For  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  distinctly  the  nature  of 
this  argument,  let  us  give  it  the  form  of  what  logicians 
call  a  syllogism. 

He   that   believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved." 
the  Baptist, 


Si/l.  I.  Baptism  is  here  made  consequent  upon  faith. 
Infants  cannot  exercise  faith; 
Therefore — Infants  must  not  be  baptized. 

If,  in  our  Lord's  words,  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved;  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
damned,"  baptism  is  made  consequent  upon  faith,  in  such 
a  sense  as  to  restrict  it  to  those  who  believe,  upon  pre- 
cisely the  same  principles  of  interpretation  salvation  is 
made  consequent  upon  faith,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  restrict 
it  to  those  that  believe,  and  damnation  is  made  conse- 
quent upon  not  believing.  We,  therefore,  call  upon  the 
Baptist,  consistently  to  follow  out  his  principles  of  inter- 
pretation, as  expressed  in  the  two  following  syllogisms : — 

Syl.  II.  Salvation  is  here  made  consequent  upon  faith. 
Infants  cannot  exercise  faith : 
Therefore — Infants  cannot  be  saved. 

.Sijl.  III.  Damnation  is  here  made  consequent  upon  not 
believing.     Infants  do  not  believe ; 
Therefore — Infants  must  be  damned. 

And  further ;  if  in  these  words  of  our  Lord,  baptism  is 
made  consequent  ui^on  faith — upon  the  same  principle  of 
interpretation,  but  more  clearly,  is  salvation  made  conse- 
quent upon  baptism;  since  faith  and  baptism  are  con- 
nected together  by  the  copulative  "and,"  and  together 
declared  to  be  the  antecedents  of  salvation.  We,  there- 
fore, call  upon  the  Baptist  to  follow  out  his  principles,  as 
expressed  in  a  fourth  syllogism : — 


Clirifl'.s  Commission  io  His  Church.  135 

Si/l.  iv.  Salvation  is  here  made  consequent  upon  bap- 
tism.    The  Baptist  will  not  baptize  an  infant ; 
Therefore — The  Baptist  secures  the  damnation  of  that 
infant. 

Now,  we  do  not  say  that  the  Baptist  believes  the  doc- 
trines embodied  in  syllogisms  ii.  iii.  iv.  What  we  do 
say  is,  that  the  principles  of  interpretation,  which  would, 
in  these  words  of  our  Lord,  give  him  a  restriction  of  bap- 
tism to  those  exercising  faith,  shut  him  up  to  these  doc- 
trines. The  same  logic  which,  from  these  words,  places  a 
bar  in  the  infant's  way  to  the  baptismal  font,  places  a 
triple  bar  in  his  way  to  heaven. 

In  view  of  these  conclusions,  which  the  Baptist  will  be 
as  unwilling  to  admit  as  we,  we  say  to  him — There  must 
be  some  fault  in  your  logic.  And  this  fault,  if  we  mistake 
not,  lies  just  here.  You  have  entirely  mistaken  the  true 
nature  of  the  commission  recorded  in  Mark  xvi.  15,  16. 
This  is  not  the  Apostles'  commission,  either  to  preach  or 
to  baptize.  And  we  offer  this  Scriptural  proof  of  our 
statement : 

Their  commission  to  preach  they  had  received  long  be- 
fore. "  And  he  (Jesus)  goeth  up  into  a  mountain,  and 
calleth  unto  him  whom  he  would,  and  they  came  unto 
him,  and  he  ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be  with 
him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach  "  (Mark 
iii.  13,  14).  "  These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth,  and  com- 
manded them,  saying,  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not ;  but  go 
rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  and  as  ye 
go  preach  "  (Matt.  x.  5-7).  Here  is  the  commission  to 
preach,  of  those  to  whom  the  words  recorded  in  Mark 
xvi.  15,  16,  were  addressed.  But  a  commission  to  preach, 
under  certain  restrictions.  "  When,  therefore,  the  Lord 
knew  how  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and 
BAPTIZED  more  disciples  than  John  (though  Jesus  himself 
BAPTIZED  not,  but  his  disciples.")  John  iv.  1,  2.  This  re- 
cord refers  to  events  which  occurred  near  the  commence- 
ment of  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  shortly  after  his  ordina- 
tion of  the  twelve,  as  recorded  in  Mark  iii.  13,  14.     His 


136  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

disciples  must  have  received  authority  to  baptize,  at  this 
time,  or  else  they  were  here  baptizing,  under  the  very 
eyes  of  Jesus,  without  any  authority  so  to  do. 

If  the  commission  recordod  in  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  is  not 
the  Apostles'  commission  to  preach,  nor  to  baptize,  the 
question  will  be  asked: — "  What,  then,  is  it?"  We  answer, 
it  is  just  what  it  purports  to  be.  Having  before  given 
them  their  commission  to  preach  and  baptize,  with  the  re- 
striction that  they  "  go  not  in  the  way  of  the  Gentiles  and 
enter  no  city  of  the  Samaritans,  but  go  to  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel"  alone,  now  that  ''  all  power  is  given 
unto  him,  in  heaven  and  in  earth  "  (Matt,  xxviii.),  and  by 
his  death  he  has  "  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
tion "  (Eph.  ii.  14)  between  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile ;  has 
taken  out  of  the  way  "  the  handwriting  of  ordinances 
which  was  against  us  (Gentiles),  nailing  it  to  his  cross  " 
(Col.  ii.  14),  he  takes  off  this  restriction,  and  says —  "  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture." 

Applying  now  the  principle  of  interpretation  universally 
admitted — that  every  part  of  an  article  must  be  inter- 
preted with  an  eye  to  the  scope  and  object  of  that  article — 
we  conclude  that  baptism  is  mentioned  here  only  inci- 
dentally; our  Lord  taking  it  for  granted  that  his  Apostles 
were  already  fully  instructed  as  to  the  proper  subjects  of 
baptism. 

Of  the  correctness  of  this  view  of  the  passage  under  ex- 
amination, the  corresponding  records  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  afford  the  strongest  confirmation.  In  Luke's  report 
of  our  Lord's  words,  the  subject  of  baptism  is  not  even 
formally  mentioned — "  And  that  repentance  and  remission 
of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations, 
beginning  at  Jerusalem."  (Luke  xxiv.  47.)  And  Mat- 
thew's report  is  in  the  words,  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost;  Teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things,  ivhat'ioever  I  have  conimanded  you.'" 
(Matt,  xxvii.  19,  20.)  Here  Christ  expressly  refers  them 
to  his  instructions  previously  given,  as  their  guide  in  the 
discharo-e  of  this  verv  commission.     What  these  instruc- 


Ch  flint's  Comoiiission  to  His  Church.  137 

tions  on  the  subject  of  baptism  were,  we  shall  inquiro 
hereafter.  (See  §§  53,  54.) 

h  we  disregard  this  principle,  that  every  part  of  an 
article  must  be  interpreted  with  an  eye  to  the  scope  and 
import  of  that  article,  we  run  into  all  kinds  of  absurdities. 
In  the  very  passage  under  examination,  Christ  says,  "  Go 
ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
ctvature."  Creature  is  often  used  in  the  word  of  God,  as 
a  general  term,  including  the  lower  orders  of  animals  as 
well  as  man.  Will  the  Baptist  interpret  this  commission, 
so  as  to  cover  such  preaching  as  that  ascribed,  in  the 
Romish  legends,  to  St.  Anthony,  viz. :  his  preaching  to  the 
fishes  ? 

All  that  our  Saviour  means  to  teach  in  his  words — "He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  but  he 
that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned  " — is  just  what  his 
words,  in  their  most  natural  interpretation,  seem  to  con- 
vey, viz.:  That  he  who  does  believe,  and  is  worthily  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved ;  and  then,  to  mark  faith  as  essential, 
and  baptism  as  not  essential  to  salvation,  he  adds,  re- 
versing the  form  of  his  declaration,  "he  that  believeth 
not,  shall  be  damned."  He  is  speaking  of  such,  and  of 
such  only,  as  he  sends  his  disciples  to  preach  his  gospel 
to ;  the  case  of  infants  is  in  no  way  referred  to  in  his 
declaration  respecting  either  faith  or  i3aptism.  If  his  dis- 
ciples are  to  believe  (as  the  Baptists,  in  common  with 
ourselves,  think  they  are,)  that  infants  are  saved  without 
faith,  he  has  taught  that  doctrine  on  some  other  occasion, 
and  he  does  not  recall  that  teaching  here.  If  his  disciples 
are  to  believe  that  infants  may  properly  be  baptized  with- 
out faith,  he  has  taught  it  on  some  other  occasion,  and  he 
does  not  recall  that  teaching  here.  The  two  cases  are 
precisely  similar,  and  our  interpretations  of  them  must 
stand  or  fall  together. 


138 


The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTEE   III. 


g47.  Is  the  import  of  Baptism  inconsistent  witli  its  administration  to  Infants? 
Acts  xxii.  16,  and  Deut.  XXX.  6.  Gal.  iii.  27,  and  Rom.  ii.  28,29.  1  Cor.  xii. 
13,  and  Rom.  iv.  11.    Col.  ii.  12,  and  Col.  ii.  11. 

§47. 

Baptist  writers  are  accustomed  to  quote  all  that  class 
of  passages  of  Scripture,  in  which  the  spiritual  import  of 
baptism  is  taught  us,  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
idea  of  its  administration  to  infants.  We  give  below  the 
most  important  of  these,  adding  the  substance  of  Dr.  Car- 
son's comments  on  them.  These  we  have  placed  in  the 
column  to  the  left.  In  the  right  hand  column  we  have 
placed  certain  passages  of  similar  character,  respecting 
the  analogous  rite  of  circumcision,  and  added  comments 
of  our  own,  in  Dr.  Carson's  strain  of  Bible  criticism. 


Ads  xxii.  16. 

And  now,  why  tamest  thou? 
Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 


"  Here  we  see  baptism  figura- 
tively washes  away  sms,  and  sup- 
poses that  they  are  previously 
truly  washed  away.  Could  our 
opponents  say  to  the  parents  of 
the  infant  about  to  be  baptized, 
'  Arise,  and  wash  away  the  sins 
of  thy  infant  ? '  "     Carson,  p.  212. 


CIECUMCISION. 


Deut.  XXX.  6. 


"  And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  cir- 
cumcise thine  heart,  and  the 
heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest 
live." 

Here  we  see  that  circumcision 
represents  in  figure  the  loving  of 
the  Lord  our  God,  with  all  our 
soul.  Could  our  opponents  say 
to  the  parents  of  an  infant  about 
to  be  circumcised — Do  you  de- 
clare that  this  infant  loves  the 
Lord  our  God  with  all  its  soul  ? 


Baptism  and  Circumcision. 


139 


BAPTISM. 

Gal.  iii.  27. 
For  as   many   of    you   as   have 
been    baptized    into     Christ 
have  put  on  Christ." 


"  Nothing  can  be  more  express. 
Here  baptism  is  represented  as 
implying  a  putting  on  of  Christ. 
Surely  this  is  peculiar  to  believers. 
Infants  cannot  put  on  Christ." 
Carson,  p.  213. 

1  Cor.  xii.  13. 
"  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all 
B.iPTiZED  into  one  body,  whe- 
ther we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
whether  we  be  bond  or  free ; 
anl  have  been  all  made  to 
drink  into  one  Spirit." 

"  They  who  are  baptized,  are 
here  supposed  to  belong  already 
to  the  body  of  Christ;  and  for 
this  reason  they  are  baptized  into 
it.  None  are  here  supposed  to 
be  baptized  upon  the  expectation, 
or  probability,  or  possibility  that 
they  may  yet  belong  to  that 
body.  They  are  baptized  into 
the  "body."     Carson,  pp.  212,  213. 


CIRCUMCISION. 

Rom.  ii.  28,  29. 
"  For  he  is  not  a   Jew,   which   is 
one     outwardly;     nether     is 
that    circumcision    which     is 
outward  in  the  flesh:  But  he 
is    a   Jew   which   is   one    in- 
wardly,   and   circumcision    is 
that    of    the    heart,    in     the 
spirit,  and  not  in   the  letter: 
who.se  praise   is   not   of  men, 
but  of  (iod. 
Nothing  can  be  more  express. 
Here   circumcision   is   said   to    be 
"  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  whose 

f  raise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  (Iod." 
nfants   cannot   be    thu3    circum- 
cised. 


Eom.  iv.  11. 
"  And    he    received    the    sign    of 
circumcision,    a    seal    of    the 
righteousness     of     the     faith 
which  he  had,  being  yet  un- 
circumcised,  that  he  might  be 
the   father   of  all   them   that 
believe." 
Here  circumcision  is  said  to  be 
the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  a 
faith  already  possessed  by  the  one 
circumcised  ;  not  a  seal  of  the  ex- 
pectation, or  probabilit}',  or   pos- 
sibility of  that  person's  believing 
at  some  future  day. 


Col.  ii.  12. 
"  Buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
wherein  also  ye  are  risen, 
with  him  through  the  faith 
of  the  operation  of  God,  who 
raised  him  from  the  dead." 

"  Here  baptism  is  explained  in  a 
sense  which  suits  believers  only." 
They  who  are  baptized  "are 
viewed  afl  already  risen  with  him 
through  faith.     Can    anything   be 


Col.  ii.  11. 
"  In   whom   also   ve   are    circum- 
cised,   with    tlie    circumcision 
made  without  hands,  in  put- 
ting off  the  body  of  the  sins 
of  the   fleph,  by  the   circum- 
cision of  Christ." 
Here  the  circumcised  are  viewed 
as    in    their   circumcision,  putting 
off  the   body   of  the  sins   of  the 
flesh.     Can  anything  be  more  ex- 
press than  that?     Was  it  true  of 


140  Tiie  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

more    express    than    this?      Are  infants,  when   presented   by  their 

infants  risen  with   Christ  through  parents,   at   eight   days    old,    that 

faith    of    the   operation    of    God?  they  had  put  otf  the  body  of  the 

If  not,    they   are  not  among  the  sins   of  the   flesh?     If  not,   then 

number  of  those   that   were   bap-  must  we  conclude  that  they  had 

tized."     Carson,  p.  212.  no  right  to  be  counted  among  the 
number  of  the  circumcised. 

And  thus  we  might  go  on,  quoting  passage  for  passage 
with  the  Baptist ;  for  just  as  explicitly  as  the  Scriptures 
teach  us  the  spiritual  import  of  baptism,  j  ust  so  explicitly 
do  they  teach  a  similar  truth  respecting  circumcision. 
In  no  way  could  this  be  more  clearly  set  forth  than  in 
Col.  ii.  11,  12,  the  two  passages  last  quoted,  in  which 
Paul  makes  use  of  the  known  and  acknowledged  spiritual 
import  of  the  earlier  rite,  circmncision,  to  illustrate  that 
of  the  latter,  baptism.  And  to  mark  their  identity,  in 
this  particular,  the  more  clearly,  he  calls  baptism  "  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian  circumcision. 

The  very  same  course  of  reasoning,  then,  which  from 
the  passages  of  Scripture  teaching  the  spiritual  import  of 
baptism,  would  give  us  a  prohibition  of  infant  baptism, 
will,  when  applied  to  passages  of  similar  import  respect- 
ing circumcision,  give  us  as  positive  a  prohibition  of  in- 
fant circumcision.  And  yet,  there  is  nothing  clearer  from 
Scripture,  than  that  circumcision  was,  by  God's  direction, 
administered  to  the  child  eight  days  old  (see  Gen.  xvii. 
12).  Here,  then,  as  in  the  case  of  our  Lord's  words,  re- 
corded in  Mark,  xvi.  16,  we  say  to  the  Baptist — Your 
argument  proves  too  much,  since  it  proves  that  which  no 
man,  with  the  Word  of  God  in  his  hands,  can  admit  to  be 
true.     There  must  be  some  fault  in  that  argument. 

That  we  may  see  just  where  the  fallacy  in  the  Baptist's 
argument  lies,  let  us  ask  the  question,  On  what  principle 
was  circumcision — a  rite  symbolizing  regeneration,  "  the 
putting  oS  of  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  that 
change  of  heart,  in  consequence  of  which  we  "  love  the 
Lord  our  God  with  all  our  soul,  that  we  may  live" — ad- 
ministered to  infanls  ? 

To  this  question,  we  answer : 

1.  Circumcision,  viewed  as  a  symbolic  rite,  simply  ex- 
hibited grace ,  did  not  confer  it.     The  doctrine  of  circum^ 


Baptij^m  and  Circumcuion.  141 

cisional  regeneration,  like  the  analogous  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  is  a  doctrine  which  finds  no  support 
from  the  Word  of  God.  Now,  grace  may  be  exhibited, 
either  (1),  as  something  actually  bestowed  of  God;  or  (2), 
as  something  brought  near,  by  God's  covenant  relation  to 
the  recipient  of  the  rite.  To  Abraham,  cLrcumcision  was 
"  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had, 
yet  being  uncircumcised,"  i.  e.,  of  righteousness  by  faith, 
in  actual  possession.  To  Isaac,  circumcised  when  eight 
days  old  (Gen.  xxi.  4),  it  was,  from  the  first  dawn  of  his 
intelligent  moral  agency,  a  seal,  or  certification,  of  God's 
peculiar  willingness  to  bestow  upon  him  that  same  "right- 
eousness of  faith  "  by  which  his  father  Abraham  was  justi- 
fied. And  who  will  venture  to  say  that  this  rite,  in  its 
symbolic  import,  was  of  less  practical  importance  to  Isaac 
than  it  was  to  Abraham  ? 

2.  Viewing  circumcision  as  sealing  or  certifying  an  ob- 
ligation on  the  part  of  the  recipient;  to  Abraham,  it  was 
a  seal  of  his  obligation  to  "  put  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of 
the  flesh,"  to  walk  by  faith  before  God,  an  obligation 
which  he  had  personally  acknowledged  in  his  reception  of 
the  rite,  for  the  obligation  is  one  growing  out  of  Abra- 
ham's position  as  a  sinner,  placed  under  a  dispensation  of 
grace ;  and  viewed  simply  as  an  obligation,  it  would  have 
been  perfect  had  no  rite  been  given  as  a  certification  there- 
to. In  his  circumcision  he  had  personally  acknowledged 
that  obligation,  and  thus  rendered  it  the  more  solemnly 
binding  upon  him.  To  Isaac,  it  was  a  seal  or  certification 
of  this  same  obligation,  to  walk  by  faith  before  God ;  an 
obligation  which  rested  upon  him  as  it  did  upon  his  father 
Abraham,  as  a  sinner  placed  under  a  dispensation  of  grace, 
and  an  obligation  which  his  believing  father,  by  God's  di- 
rection, acknowledged  on  his  behalf.  And  who  shall  say 
that  circumcision,  viewed  in  this  aspect  of  it,  was  of  less 
importance  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other. 

The  fallacy  in  reasoning  from  the  passages  of  Scripture 
which  teach  the  spiritual  import  of  circumcision,  in  such 
a  way  as  to  prohibit  its  administration  to  infants,  lies, 

1.  In  the  groundless  assumption  that  grace  can  be  ex- 
hibited only  as  grace  bestov)ed ;  whereas  God  chooses  to 


142  Tiie  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

exhibit  it  as  grace  brought  near,  or  ready  to  he  bestowed, 
also :  the  groundless  assumption  that  a  seal  can  be  affixed 
to  a  deed  only ;  whereas  God  chooses  (and  men  in  the  or- 
dinary business  of  life,  act  in  the  same  way)  to  affix  his 
seal  to  promises  as  well  as  deeds. 

2.  In  the  unscriptural  idea,  that  circumcision  created 
the  obligation  to  walk  by  faith,  whereas  it  was  simply  a 
public  acknowledgment  of  an  obligation  already  existing, 
and  growing  immediately  out  of  man's  relation  to  God,  as 
a  sinner  placed  under  a  dispensation  of  grace.  Of  just 
the  same  character  is  the  fallacy  of  the  Baptist's  reasoning 
from  a  similar  class  of  passages  respecting  baptism,  "  the 
circumcision  of  Christ," 

And  here  let  us  correct  the  error  into  which  many  Bap- 
tist writers  have  fallen  respecting  the  nature  of  circumci- 
sion : 

1.  In  representing  it  as  belonging  to  the  politico-eccle- 
siastical state  of  the  Jews,  Circumcision  was  given  of 
God  to  Abraham,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before 
the  politico-ecclesiastical  state  of  the  Jews  was  estab- 
lished ;  and  was  given  for  the  confirmation  of  a  promise, 
in  which  we  Christian  Gentiles  have  as  direct  and  deep  an 
interest  as  ever  had  a  Jew.  "  Now,  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed  "  (subsequently  explained  by  Paul,  in  the  words — 
"  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise  "  v.  29)  "  were  the  promi- 
ses made.  And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  that  was 
confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law  which  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it 
should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect."  (Gal.  iii. 
16,  17.) 

2.  In  representing  it  as  intended  to  be  a  mark  of  na- 
tural descent  and  temporal  privileges,  rather  than  of  a 
religious  relation.  In  proof  of  this,  we  are  told  that  the 
Ishmaelites  and  Edomites  were  circumcised.  "  The  Ish- 
maelites  and  Edomites  were  apostates  from  the  faith  of 
Abraham.  And  will  it  be  pretended  that  the  abuse  of 
circumcision  by  apostates,  proves  that  it  was  not  the  initia- 
tory rite  of  the  Church  ?  Why  not  argue  that  since  Mor- 
mons  practice  baptism,  and  yet  do  not  enter  into  the 


Baptism  and  Circumcidon.  143 

Christian  church,  baptism  cannot  be  an  initiatory  rite. "' 
And  what  clearer  proof  can  we  have  that  circumcision  was 
not  intended  as  a  mark  of  natural  descent,  than  the  fact 
that  by  God's  appointment  the  Gentile  proselyte  was  cir- 
cumcised as  well  as  the  Jew  ?  "  And  when  a  stranger 
shall  sojourn  with  thee,  and  will  keep  the  Passover  to  the 
Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised,  and  then  let  him 
come  near  and  keep  it ;  and  he  shall  be  as  one  that  is  born 
in  the  land ;  for  no  uncircumcised  person  shall  eat  there- 
of." (Ex.  xii.  48.) 

And  now,  we  ask — Shall  we  accept  as  proof  of  the 
"  mind  of  the  Spirit,"  that  baptism,  under  the  new  dispen- 
tion,  shall  not  be  administered  to  infants,  an  argument 
which  proves  at  the  same  time,  and  just  as  decisively,  that 
circumcision  was  not  to  be  administered  to  infants  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  when  God  from  heaven 
has  said,  and  placed  it  upon  record  before  our  eyes,  "  He 
that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you — 
the  uncircumcised  man-child  shall  be  cut  off  from  his 
people ;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant  ?  "  (Gen.  xvii.  13, 
14.) 

»  N.  L.  Rice  on  Baptism,  p.  220. 


144:  The  Doctmie  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTER   IV. 


THE    CHURCH. 


§48.  Essential  Character  of  the  Visible  Church.     §49.  Nature  of  Church  Mem- 
beryhip. 

Having  completed  our  examination  of  the  arguments 
(in  so  far  as  they  are  arguments  from  the  Scriptures), 
urged  against  infant  baptism — before  turning  to  the  par- 
ticular examination  of  the  arguments  on  the  other  side, 
and  as  preparatory  to  such  examination,  we  ask  the 
reader's  attention  to  what  the  Word  of  God  teaches  us, 
respecting  the  character  of  the  visible  Church,  and  what 
is  implied  in  Church  membership.  And  here  we  insist  the 
more  strenuously  upon  a  direct  appeal  to  the  Word  of 
God,  because,  if  we  mistake  not,  unscriptural  notions  on 
these  points  are  entertained  by  many  members  of  Pedo- 
Baptist  churches. 

§  48.   Tlie  essential  Character  of  the  Visible  Church. 

The  visible  Church  has,  from  its  own  institution,  pos- 
sessed the  character  of  a  school. 

"  What  advantage,  then,"  writes  Paul,  "  hath  the  Jew  ? 
Or  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  Much  every 
way :  chiefly,  because  unto  them  were  committed  the 
oracles  of  God."  (P\.om.  iii.  1,  2),  i.  e.,  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

For  what  purpose  were  these  "  oracles  of  God  "  com- 
mitted to  the  circumcised — the  Old  Testament  Church  ? 
Let  the  Scriptures  answer.  God  says :  "  Seeing  that 
Abraham  shall  surely  become  a  great  and  mighty  nation, 
and  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him. 
For  I  know  lijm,  that  he  will  comrnand  his  children  and 


Essential  Character  of  the  Visible  Church.        145 

his  household  after  him,  and  tliey  shall  keep  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment,  that  the  Lord  may 
bring  upon  Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him.'- 
(Gen.  xviii.  18,  19.)  By  Moses  God  gives  direction  to 
Israel :  "  And  these  words  which  I  command  thee  this 
day,  shall  be  in  thy  heart :  and  thou  shalt  teach  them 
diligently  to  thy  children,  and  shalt  talk  of  them  when- 
thou  sittest  in  thy  house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the 
way,  and  when  thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up. 
And  thou  shalt  bind  them  for  a  sign  upon  thy  hand,  and 
they  shall  be  as  frontlets  between  thine  eyes.  And  thou 
shalt  write  them  upon  the  posts  of  thy  house,  and  on  thy 
gates."  (Deut.  vi.  6-9.)  Can  any  one  doubt  that  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  the  visible  Church  was 
a  school,  in  which  disciples  were  to  be  trained  for  Heaven  ? 
or  that,  by  God's  direction,  these  disciples — scholars- — 
were  to  be  entered  in  this  school  in  early  childhood  ? 

Under  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  the  visible 
Church  retains  this  same  character.  "  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach,  i.  e.,  (make  disciples — scholars — of)  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  Teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you ;  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
(Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.)  Such  is  the  commission  of  the 
Church,  as  given  by  her  Lord  and  Master  himself.  So 
plainly  is  this  set  forth  as  the  great  office  of  the  Church, 
in  these  words,  that  on  this  point  all  Protestant  com- 
mentators aorree. 


§  49.  Nature  of  Church  Membership. 

The  visible  Church  being,  by  God's  appointment,  his 
school,  the  essential  right  of  membership — the  only  right 
which  is  necessarily  imphed  'in  affirming  the  Church  ijaem- 
bership  of  a  person — is  the  right  to  instruction  "  in  all 
things  which  God  hath  commanded."  There  are  other 
rights  and  privileges  which  may  belong  to  members  "of 
the  Church  upon  certain  conditions,  and  these  may  be' 
spoken  of  (when  speaking  looselv)  as  rights  of  member- 
7 


146  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

ship.  But  the  right  to  instruction,  and  what  is  neces- 
sarily implied  in  it,  can  alone  be  regarded  as  an  essential 
right  of  membership. 

This  whole  subject  may  be  illustrated  by  the  rights  of 
citizenship  under  a  civil  government.  As  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  I  am  entitled  to  the  protection  of  my 
country  against  illegal  or  unjust  oppression,  both  at  home 
and  abroad.  As  a  free  male  citizen,  over  twenty- one 
years  of  age,  I  am  entitled  to  vote  in  the  election  of  those 
who  are  to  be  my  civil  rulers ;  and  both  of  these  rights 
are  often  spoken  of  as  rights  of  citizenship.  My  infant 
child,  from  the  hour  of  its  birth,  is  as  truly  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  as  I  am,  and  all  the  rights  which  are 
essential  to  citizenship  must  belong  to  it.  Let  any  one, 
at  home  or  abroad,  attempt  to  oppress  that  child,  and  the 
civil  government  is  bound  to  interpose  for  its  protection,  and 
secure  to  it  the  enjoyment  of  its  rights.  Yet  that  child, 
if  a  female,  will  never  be  entitled  to  vote ;  and  if  a  male, 
not  until  twenty-one  years  of  age.  Civil  government  is  an 
institution  for  securing  to  its  subject  the  enjoyment  of  his 
rights ;  and  hence  the  right  to  protection  is  the  essential 
right  of  citizenship.  The  right  to  vote,  although  often 
spoken  of  as  a  right  of  citizenship  (when  speaking  loosely) 
is,  in  fact,  a  right  which  belongs  to  a  citizen,  upon  certain 
conditions,  which  are  prescribed  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
country ;  and  a  person  to  whom  that  right  is  denied  (my 
infant  child,  for  example),  may  be  as  truly  a  citizen  as 
one  to  whom  that  right  is  granted. 

Just  so  in  the  visible  Church.  As  a  member  of  that 
Church,  I  am  entitled  to  be  "  taught  all  things  whatsoever 
Christ  hath  commanded."  As  a  believing  member,  I  am 
entitled  to  a  place  at  the  Lord's  table.  This  latter  right 
is  often  spoken  of  as  a  right  of  membership,  just  as  a  right 
to  vote  is  often  spoken  of  as  a  right  of  citizenship.  Yet, 
in  fact,  it  is  a  right  belonging  to  members  upon  certain 
conditions  only — conditions  prescribed  in  the  Word  of  God. 
"  Faith  to  discern  the  Lord's  body  "  (1  Cor.  xi.  49)  is  de- 
clared to  be  essential  to  a  right  participation  in  the  Lord's 
supper;  and  until  a  member  of  the  Church  gives  credible 
evidence  of  the  possession  of  such  faith,  he  cannot  claim  a 


Nature  of  Cliurch  Memhcr-^hip.  147 

place  at  the  Lord's  table,  in  virtue  of  his  membership,  any 
more  than  an  infant  child  can  claim  a  right  to  vote  in 
virtue  of  his  citizenship. 

As  already  remarked,  the  essential  right  of  church  mem- 
bership is  the  right  to  instruction  "  in  all  things  whatso- 
ever Christ  hath  commanded."  Hence,  in  admitting  an 
inlant  by  baptism,  we  require  the  parent,  already  a  believ- 
ing member  of  that  Church,  to  covenant  with  God  and 
with  his  Church,  that  he  "  will  teach  the  child  to  read 
God's  Word ;  that  he  will  instruct  it  in  the  principles  of 
our  holy  religion,  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments ;  that  he  will  set  an  example  of 
piety  and  godliness  before  it ;  and  endeavor,  by  all  the 
means  of  God's  appointment,  to  bring  up  the  child  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  (Presbyterian 
Directory  for  Worship,  chap,  vii.)  In  the  first  instance, 
the  religious  instruction  of  the  infant  member  is  commit- 
ted to  the  beheving  parent,  in  baptism,  recognized  as  the 
representative  of  the  Church,  in  his  entering  into  a  cov- 
enant with  that  Church ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  removal* 
of  the  believing  parent  by  death,  then  the  duty  of  "  teach- 
ing the  child  all  things  whatsoever  Christ  hath  com- 
manded," devolves  upon  the  Church,  and  the  Church  is 
bound  to  see  to  its  instruction. 

By  neglecting  the  obvious  distinction  between  the 
Church  visible  and  the  Church  spiritual,  and  applying 
what  in  Scripture  is  said  of  the  latter  to  the  former,  Bap- 
tist writers  would  make  the  Church  visible  to  consist  of 
believers  only.  Certainly  such  was  not  the  case  under  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation :  nor  do  the  Scriptures  give 
any  countenance  to  the  attempt  to  make  a  change  in  this 
particular.  The  visible  Church  of  Christ,  according  to 
his  own  declaration,  "  is  as  a  net,  which  was  cast  into  the 
sea,  and  gathered  of  every  kind;  which,  when  it  was  full, 
they  drew  to  share,  and  sat  down,  and  gathered  the  good 
into  vessels,  but  cast  the  bad  away."  (Matt.  xiii.  47,  48.) 


148  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTER    V. 

RELATION   OF   THE   CHURCH    UNDER    THE    NEW    TO    THAT 
UNDER   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT    DISPENSATION. 

1 60.  The  Charter  of  the  Church  unchanged,  g  51.  Scriptural  Representations. 
g52.  The  first  Christian  Church  but  the  Old  Testament  Church  purged  of 
the  Apostasy. 

§  50.   The  Charter  of  the  Church  unchanged. 

The  visible  Church  first  assumed,  distinctly,  its  form  as 
a  Church  {i.  e.,  a  sealed  company,  separated  from  the 
world)  under  the  operation  of  God's  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham. "  Before  this  time,  the  Church  of  God  had  existed 
in  the  patriarchal  form.  Every  pious  family  was  a  little 
Church,  of  which  the  father  was  the  officiating  priest.  By 
him  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifices  were  offered ;  and 
he  led  the  family  devotions.  Thus,  we  find  that  Abram, 
wherever  he  spent  a  night,  built  an  altar  and  called  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  as  every  pious  family  was  a 
little  Church,  so  were  the  children  members  of  that 
Church,  trained  by  the  father  for  God's  service."  ^  But  it 
was  under  the  operation  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham, 
that  the  visible  Church  first  assumed,  distinctly,  its  form 
as  a  Church. 

That  covenant  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  4-8.  "  As  for 
me,  behold  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  the 
father  of  many  nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any 
more  be  called  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham ; 
for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee.  And  I 
will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  will  make  na- 
tidns  of  thee ;  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.  And  I 
will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting 

>  N.  L.  Rice  on  Baptism,  p.  213. 


Charter  of  the  Church  Unchanged.  149 

covenant ,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after 
theo.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee, 
the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of 
Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession ;  and  I  will  be  their 
God." 

This  covenant  is  a  record,  at  once,  of  God's  promises  to 
his  Church,  and  of  that  Church's  obligations.  In  some  of 
its  particulars,  its  promises  and  obligations  are  addressed 
to  Abraham's  descendants  through  Isaac: — But  under- 
stood as  we  are  taught  in  God's  words  to  interpret  its 
terms,  and  as  the  men  of  faith  in  every  age  have  under- 
stood it,  from  the  time  that  Abraham,  having  "  seen  the 
promises  afar  off,  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  he 
was  a  stranger  and  a  pilgrim  on  earth,  and  desired  a  bet- 
ter country,  that  is  a  heavenly  "  (Heb.  xi.  13, 16),  this  has 
constituted  the  charter  of  the  Church  of  God. 

This  truth  is  presented  to  us  in  many  forms  in  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures.  "  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced 
to  see  my  day,"  says  Christ,  "and  he  saw  it,  and  was 
glad "  (John  viii.  56).  "  Know  ye,  therefore,"  writes 
Paul,  "  that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham.  And  the  Scriptures,  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  be- 
fore the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying.  In  thee  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed.  So,  then,  they  which  be  of  faith  are 
blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,  For  ye  are  all  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ. 
There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor 
free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female :  for  ye  are  all  one 
in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise  "  (Gal.  iii. 
7-9,  26-29).  Christians  are  never  called  the  children  of 
Enoch,  of  Noah,  of  David,  or  of  any  other  eminent  be- 
liever, but  they. are  called  "children  of  Abraham"  and 
"  Abraham's  seed."  Evidently,  therefore,  they  sustain  to 
him  a  peculiar  relation.  What  constitutes  this  relation  ? 
I  answer,  the  covenant  into  which  God  entered  with  Abra- 
ham, to  which  Paul  refers  in  the  passage  just  quoted, 
Christians  are  "  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 


150  Tlie  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

This  matter  Paul  argues  at  some  length  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Komans.  "  And  he  (Abraham)  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised ;  that  he  might  be 
the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  cir- 
cumcised, that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them 
also  ;  and  the  father  of  the  circumcision  to  them  who  are 
not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the 
steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  he  had, 
being  yet  uncircumcised.  For  the  promise  that  he  should 
be  the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham  or  his  seed 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith. 
Therefore,  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace ;  to  the 
end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed :  not  to  that 
only  which  is  of  the  law,  hut  to  that  also  which  is  of  the 
faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all :  (as  it  is 
written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations)  be- 
fore him  whom  he  believed,  even  God,  who  quickeneth 
the  dead,  and  calleth  the  things  which  be  not  as  though 
they  were.  They  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these 
are  not  the  children  of  God ;  but  the  children  of  the  pro- 
mise, are  counted  for  the  seed."  (Kom.  iv.  11,  13,  16, 
17  ;  ix.  8.) 

After  reading  such  expositions  of  God's  Covenant  as 
these,  can  a.ny  one  doubt  that  it  is  in  fulfillment  of  God's 
promise  to  Abraham,  that  he  should  be  "  the  father  of 
many  nations," '' the  heir  of  the  world,"  the  Church  re- 
ceived her  great  commission,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature  "  (Mark  xvi.  15)? 
Is  the  promise  which  accompanied  that  commission,  '•'  Lo, 
I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world  " 
(]\Tatt.  xxviii.  20),  anything  else  than  the  promise  of  that 
covenant,  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  he  a  God  unto  thee 
and  thy  seed  after  thee  ?  "     (Gen.  xvii.  7») 

Hence,  we  say,  this  covenant  of  God  with  Abraham, 
according  to  the  plain  representations  of  Scripture,  is  as 
truly  THE  CHARTER  of  the  Church,  i.  e.,  the  written  in- 
strument, declaring  the  privileges  and  obligations  of  the 
Church  now,  as  it  ever  was  under  the  Old  Testament  dis- 


Scriptural  BejJtreseyitations.  151 

pensation.  And  those  that  become  Christ's  do  thereby- 
become  "Abraham's  seed  accordmg  to  the  promise  "  iii 
^vhat  has  ever  been  the  true  sense  of  that  promise. 

§51.  Scriptural  Representations. 

From  among  many  Scriptural  representations  of  the 
nature  of  the  change  which  took  pUice  in  the  visible 
Church,  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  we  will 
ask  the  reader's  attention  to  two  only:  one  from  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  other  from  his  Epistle  to  the 
Ephcsians. 

Romans  xi.  18-26.  "Boast  not  against  the  branches. 
But  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the 
root  thee.  Thou  wilt  say  then.  The  branches  were 
broken  off,  that  I  might  be  graffed  in.  Well;  be- 
cause of  unbelief,  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou 
standest  by  faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear : 
For  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  Behold,  therefore, 
the  goodness  and  severity  of  God  ;  on  them  which 
fell,  severity ;  but  toward  thee  goodness,  if  thou  con- 
tinue in  his  goodness :  otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be 
cut  off.  And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  un- 
belief, shall  be  graffed  in :  for  God  is  able  to  graff 
them  in  again.  For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive 
tree  which  is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  graffed  con- 
trary to  nature  into  a  good  olive  tree,  how  much 
more  shall  these,  which  be  the  natural  branches,  be 
graffed  into  their  own  olive  tree.  For  I  would  not, 
brethren,  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  of  this  mystery 
(lest  ye  should  be  wise  in  your  own  conceits)  that 
blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel,  until  the  full- 
ness of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  And  so,  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved." 

In  this  passage,  by  "the  wild"  and  "good  olive  trees," 
the  Apostle  cannot  mean  the  natural  state  of  the  parties 
before  God ;  for  he  has  fully  proved  in  a  previous  part  of 


152  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

this  epistle,  that  in  this  respect,  between  the  Jew  and  the 
Gentile,  there  is  no  difference.  Neither  can  he  mean  by 
the  "  good  olive  tree,"  the  politico-ecclesiastical  state  estab- 
lished in  the  time  of  Moses;  for  that  was  then  "vanishing 
away ;  "  and  none  more  zealously  than  Paul  resisted  every 
attempt  of  Judaizing  teachers,  to  lay  its  yoke  upon  the 
Gentiles.  Nor  can  the  "  good  olive  tree  "  mean  the  true 
spiritual  Church  of  God ;  for,  from  that,  these  Jews  were 
not  cut  off,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  were  never 
members  of  it,  as  our  Lord  teaches  in  his  words  :  "  If  ye 
were  Abraham's  children,  ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abra- 
ham, But  now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told 
you  the  truth,  which  I  have  heard  of  God :  this  did  not 
Abraham.  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts 
of  your  fither  ye  will  do."     (John  viii.  39,  40,  44.) 

By  the  "  good  olive  tree,"  Paul  can  mean  nothing  but 
thi  visible  Church.  And  what  says  he  of  it  ?  That  the 
"  good  olive  tree  "  was  cut  down  or  rooted  up  ?  That  it 
had  withered,  trunk  and  branch,  or  was  no  longer  the  care 
of  the  divine  planter  ?  Nothing  like  it.  He  asserts  the 
continuance  of  the  "  good  olive  tree  "  in  life  and  vigor ; 
the  excision  of  some  worthless  branches,  and  the  insertion 
of  new  ones  in  their  stead.  "  Thou  "  says  he,  addressing 
the  Gentile,  "  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive 
tree."  Translate  this  into  less  figurative  language,  and 
what  is  its  import  ?  That  the  visible  church  of  God  sub- 
sists without  injury  through  the  change  of  dispensation 
and  of  members.  Branches  indeed  may  be  cut  off,  but 
the  rooted  trunk  stands  firm,  and  other  branches  occupy 
the  place  of  those  which  are  lopped  away.  The  Jews  are 
cast  out  of  the  Church,  and  the  Church  perishes  not  with 
them.  There  was  still  left  the  trunk  of  the  old  olive  tree; 
there  was  still  fatness  in  its  roots ;  it  stands  in  the  same 
fertile  soil,  the  covenant  of  God ;  and  the  admission  of  the 
Gentiles  into  the  room  of  the  excommunicated  Jews  makes 
them  a  part  of  that  covenant  Church ;  as  branches  graffed 
into  the  olive  tree,  and  flourishing  in  its  fatness,  are  iden- 
tified with  the  tree."  ^ 

>  J.  M.  Mason's  "Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  309. 


Scriptural  Reprcsentatioyvi.  153 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  Apostle,  in  the  light  of  pro- 
phecy, foresees  the  restoration  of  the  Jews.  These,  says  he, 
the  "  natural  branches  shall  be  graffed  in  again — shall  be 
graflfed  into  their  oivn  olive  tree."  Their  own  olive  tree, 
then,  must  have  been  preserved.  Dropping  the  figure  : 
they  shall  be  brought  into  the  same  Church  in  which  the 
Gentile  Christians  now  are ;  and  this  is  their  own  Church. 
In  coming  into  it,  they  are  but  coming  back  again  into 
their  own  Church.  How  can  this  be,  unless  the  visible 
Church  be  essentially  one  and  the  same  under  both  dis- 
pensations ? 

Eph.  ii.  11-14,  19-22.  "Wherefore,  remember,  that  ye 
being  in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh,  who  are  called 
uncircumcision  by  that  which  is  called  the  circumci- 
sion in  the  flesh,  made  by  hands;  That  at  that  time, 
ye  were  without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  covenants 
of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the 
world.  But  now,  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye,  who  sometime 
were  far  off",  are  made  nigh,  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 
For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and 
hath  broken  down  the  middle  w^all  of  partition  be- 
tween us." 

Can  there  be  any  doubt  what  "  commonwealth  of  Israel " 
it  is,  in  which  the  Gentiles,  once  "ahens,"  are  now  made 
''  citizens  ?  "  Can  it  be  any  other  than  the  visible  Church 
to  which  Israel  belonged  ?  or  what  "  covenants  of  pro- 
mise," to  which  they,  "  once  strangers,"  have  been 
"  brought  nigh ? "  Can  it  be  any  other  than  the  "cove- 
nant of  promise  "  upon  which  God's  Church  is  built  ?  Or 
in  what  the  Gentile  and  the  Jew  have  now  been  made 
"  both  one,"  by  "  breaking  down  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
tion between  them?"  Can  it  be  anything  else  than  the 
visible  Church  of  God? 

The  Apostle  proceeds: — Ver.  19. — "Now,  therefore,  ye 
are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens 
with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God."  Fellow- 
citizens  with  what  saints?  The  Old  Testament  saints, 
7* 


lo-i  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

beyond  a  question  :  fellow-citizens  with  Abraham,  Moses, 
David  and  Isaiah.  Of  what  "  household  of  God  "  does  the 
Apostle  speak?  Of  the  household  to  which  these  Old 
Testament  saints  belonged.  Ver.  20. — "And  are  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Proj^hets,  Jesu.s 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone ;  21.  In  whom 
all  the  building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  unto  a  holy 
temple  in  the  Lord.  22.  In  whom  ye  also  are  builded  to- 
gether, for  a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit."  Of 
what  "  holy  temple  "  does  the  Apostle  here  speak  ?  Of 
the  Church  spiritual?  No.  For  the  Cliurch  spiritual  he 
declares,  "  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  is  laid, 
which  is  Christ  Jesus  "  (1  Cor.  iii.  2).  The  visible  Church 
alone,  can  be  said  to  be  built  upon  "  the  foundation  of  the 
Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone."  And  it  is  only  the  one  visible  Church 
which  has  existed  under  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment dispensations,  that  can  be  said  to  embrace  in  its 
foundations,  at  once,  the  Apostles  and  Prophets. 

§  52.    The  first  Christian  Cliurch  hut  the  Old  Testament 
Church  purged,  of  the  Apostasy. 

The  essential  unity  of  the  Church,  under  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  dispensations,  appears  just  as  plainly  in 
the  history  of  "  The  Acts,"  as  it  does  in  Paul's  Epistles. 
The  first  Christian  Church  existed  before  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. "  And  in  those  days  Peter  stood  up  in  the  midst  of 
the  disciples,  and  said  (the  number  of  the  names  together 
were  about  a  hundred  and  twenty),  men  and  brethren:'' 
(Acts  i.  15,  16).  These  hundred  and  twenty  disciples, 
brethren,  formed  the  first  Christian  Church  ever  existing 
on  earth ;  and  we  find  them  exercising  one  of  the  highest 
functions  of  a  Church,  in  the  choice  of  an  Apostle  in  the 
place  of  Judas  (see  Acts  i.  16-26).  This  Church  it  was 
that  gathered  in  Jerusalem,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
"  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place  "  (Acts  ii.  1).  And 
to  this  Church  the  three  thousand  converted  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  were  added :  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received 


The  first  Christian  Church  Purged.  1 55 

the  "Word  were  baptized ;  and  the  same  day  there  were 
added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls."  (Acts  ii.  41.) 

Now,  these  "  hundred  and  twenty,"  incUiding  the  Apos- 
tles, never  received  Christian  baptism.  They  had  been 
baptized,  in  all  probability,  by  John,  or  by  Christ's  dis- 
ciples ;  but  this  baptism,  as  has  been  shown  in  §  29,  and 
.as  all  modern  Baptist  writers  admit,  was  not  Christian 
baptism,  nor  could  it  take  the  place  of  Christian  bap- 
tism ;  as  Paul  decides  in  the  case  of  certain  disciples  at 
Ephesus  (see  Acts  xix.  1-5).  They  were  also  baptized 
"  with  the  Holy  Grhost  and  with  fire'"  (iVcts  ii.  2-4) :  but 
let  the  reader  notice,  (1,)  they  were  a  Church  before  this 
baptism,  and  exercised  the  functions  of  a  Church  in  the 
choice  of  an  Apostle ;  and  (2 )  baptism  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  Christian  baptism,  in  the  distinctive  sense  of 
that  term,  nor  could  it  take  the  place  of  Christian  baptism,  as 
is  evident  from  Peter's  administering  Christian  baptism  to 
those  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  after  they  had  been  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost.   (See  Acts  x.  44-48.) 

Admitting  that  these  "  hundred  and  twenty  "  never  re- 
ceived Christian  baptism,  Mr.  Alex.  Campbell  attempts  to 
evade  the  force  of  the  argument  therefrom,  by  saying, 
"  When  a  person  is  appointed  by  God  to  set  up  an  institu- 
tion, he  is  not  himself  to  be  regarded  as  a  subject  of  that 
institution.  Some  one  must  commence  the  institution — 
there  must  be  some  one  to  commence  Christian  baptism  ; 
that  could  not  be  done  till  Jesus  had  died,  was  buried,  and 
rose  again."  "  This  evasion  of  the  difficulty  will  not  an- 
swer. Abraham  set  up  the  institution  of  circumcision, 
and  yet  he  was  himself  circumcised.  Aaron,  the  first 
Jewish  high-priest,  was  consecrated  just  as  were  his  suc- 
cessors. Why,  then,  did  not  these  hundred  and  twenty 
receive  Christian  baptism  ?  "  ^ 

To  this  question  we  can  give  but  one  answer,  if  we  an- 
swer it  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  The 
Jewish  Church,  as  a  body,  had  apostatized  from  God ;  and 
this,  their  apostasy,  was  consummated  by  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ,  their  Messiah.     This  crowning  act  of  apostasy 

>  N.  L.  Rice  on  Baptism,  p.  208. 


156  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

being  the  act  of  their  rulers,  was  regarded  by  God,  and 
treated,  as  the  act  of  the  people  at  large.  "  The  God  of 
our  fathers  hath  glorified  his  son  Jesus ;  whom  ye  deliv- 
ered up,  and  denied  him  in  the  presence  of  Pilate,  when 
he  was  determined  to  let  him  go ;  But  ye  denied  the  Holy- 
One  and  the  Just,  and  desired  a  murderer  to  be  granted 
unto  you  ;  and  killed  the  Prince  of  Life, — And  now,  breth- 
ren, I  wot  that  through  ignorance  ye  did  it,  as  did  also 
your  rulers  "  (Acts  iii.  13,  14,  15,  17),  is  Peter's  address 
to  the  Jews,  at  the  gate  of  the  temple,  shortly  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  In  consequence  of  this  apostasy,  the 
Jewish  Church,  as  a  body,  was  cut  off. 

Ere  this  apostasy  was  consummated,  however,  a  few 
had  received  the  Messiah,  and  "  believed  on  his  name  ; 
and  to  them  had  he  given  power  to  become  the  sons  of 
God  "  (John  i.  12).  They  had  no  part  in  the  guilty  act 
which  filled  up  the  measure  of  the  iniquity  of  their  peo- 
ple (Matt,  xxiii.  32).  And,  therefore,  in  the  excision  of 
that  people,  they  were  not  included.  God  separated  here, 
as  he  did  in  the  days  of  Noah,  and  in  the  case  of  Sodom, 
The  apostasy  was  cut  off;  the  election  remained.  These 
"hundred  and  twenty"  had  been  initiated  into  the  Church, 
at  eight  days  old,  by  circumcision;  a  rite  which,  from  the 
days  of  Abraham  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  the  only 
initiatory  rite  of  the  Church  of  God  (for  nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  neither  "the  "  baptism  of  John,"  nor  that 
of  Christ's  disciples  whilst  their  master  remained  with 
them,  were  initiatory  rites  into  any  Church).  At  the 
time  of  the  crucifixion,  they  were  members  of  the  Church, 
in  good  standing,  and  they  never  lost  that  standing.  The 
excision  of  "  the  apostasy,"  simply  purged  the  Church  of 
God ;  not  affecting  the  integrity  of  that  Church  at  all. 
The  part  not  exscinded,  remai  ned,  constituting  the  true, 
visible  Church  of  God  on  earth.  And  around  this  purged 
Old  Testament  Church,  as  its  nucleus,  the  New  Testament 
Church  was  collected.  Since  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
the  institution  of  Christian  baptism,  that  baptism  is  the 
initiatory  rite  into  the  Church  of  God ;  and  all  who  enter 
that  Church  (including  the  circumcised  Jews,  who  had 
lost  their  church-standing  by  being  exscinded  with  "  the 


The  First  Christian  Church  Purged.  157 

Apostasy  "),  must  receive  it.  These  "  hundred  and  twenty  " 
never  received  it,  for  the  simple  and  sufficient  reason  that 
they  were  already  in  the  Church,  inducted  in  infancy  by 
circumcision,  and  they  had  no  need  to  enter. 

How  perfectly  does  this  history  in  the  book  of  Acts 
agree  with  the  representations  given  us  in  other  portions 
of  Scripture,  especially  by  Paul  in  his  various  Epistles. 


158  Tlie  Doctrine  of  BaptU-yns. 


CHAPTER    VI 


{63.  Christ'a  Recognition  of  Infant  Membership  in  the  Church.  Matt.  six.  13-15. 
Mark  x.  13-16.  I,uke  xviii.  15-17.  g54.  Christ's  re-commission  of  Peter.  John 
xxi.  15.  §55.  Peter's  preaching  of  Christian  Baptism.  Acts  ii.  38,  39  and  iii. 
24-26.    g56.  Significant  Silence  of  the  Jews. 

§53.  Matt  xix.  13-15.  Mark  x.  13-16.  Luke  xy'nl  15-17. 

Matt.  xix.  13-15.  *'  Then  were  brought  unto  him  little 
children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them,  and 
pray ;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus 
said,  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to 
come  unto  me ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdoin  of  Heaven. 
And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them,  and  departed  thence." 

Mark  X.  13-16.  "  And  they  brought  young  children  to 
him,  that  he  should  touch  them;  and  his  disciples  re- 
buked tho.se  that  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus 
saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them. 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily, 
I  say  unto  you.  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  king- 
dom of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  there- 
in. And  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands 
upon  them,  and  blessed  them." 

Luke  xviii.  15-17.  "  And  they  brought  unto  him  also 
infants,  that  he  should  touch  them;  but  when  his 
disciples  saw  it,  they  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus 
called  them  unto  him,  and  said,  Suffer  little  children 
to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you. 
Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
a  little  child,  shall  in  nowise  enter  therein." 


Christ's  Rccognitvon  of  Infant  Membership. 


159 


As  preliminary  to  an  exposition  of  our  Lord's  words, 
"  For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  (Cxod),"  we  asli 
the  reader  to  remark  : 

1.  The  persons  brought  to  Jesus  were  httle  children,  in 
the  proper  sense  of  that  phrase.  Matthew  styles  them 
" little  children ;  "  Mark,  "young  children,"  and  Luke, 
"  infants,"  (breplie);  and  Mark  records  the  fact,  that  "  he 
took  them  up  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  them." 

2.  These  infants  were  brought  to  Jesus,  "that  he  should 
put  his  hands  on  them,  and  pray,"  (Matt.);  "put  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  bless  them,"  (Mark) ;  and  not  for 
bodily  healing,  as  Dr.  Gill  imagines. 

3.  Our  Lord's  words  must  be  understood  in  a  sense  in 
which  they  will  convey  a  rebuke  to  his  disciples ;  and  a 
rebuke  correspondent  to  the  conduct,  on  their  part,  which 
has  called  forth  that  rebuke.  The  offence  committed  by 
his  disciples  must  have  been  a  serious  offence  in  our  Lord's 
account ;  for  this  is  the  only  instance,  in  the  whole  course 
of  his  life,  in  which  we  read  of  him,  "the  meek  and  low- 
ly "  one,  that  "  he  was  much  displeased  "  with  his  disci- 
ples. As  the  displeasure  of  Jesus  must  have  been  a 
righteous  displeasure,  nothing  short  of  a  rebuke  will  be 
the  proper  expression  of  it. 

Turn  we  now  to  an  examination  of  our  Lord's  words, 
"  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  (God)." 

1.  ''Kingdom  of  Heaven,  (God)."  The  word  here 
translated  kingdom,  is  a  word  of  more  extensive  significa- 
tion than  our  English  word  kingdom;  being  used,  as 
Campbell  remarks,  to  express  the  ideas  expressed  by  our 
two  words  reign  and  kingdom.  Wherever  it  is  used  in 
connection  with  such  phrases  as  "is  come  unto  you,"  "is 
at  hand,"  or  the  like,  it  is  evidently  to  be  understood  in 
the  sense  of  Messiah's  reign,  as  in  Matt.  iii.  2.  "Repent 
ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand."  In  other  in- 
stances it  is  to  be  understood  in  the  proper  sense  of  our 
English  word,  kingdom ;  and  it  is  used  to  designate  "  the 
religious  constitution,  under  which  subjects  were  to  be 
gathered  to  God  by  his  Son,  and  a  society  to  be  formed, 
which  was  to  subsist,  first,  in  more  imperfect  circumstan- 
ces on  earth,  but  afterwards  to  appear  complete  in  the 


160  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

world  of  glory."  (Doddridge.)  Hence,  "  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  or  of  God,"  is  sometimes  used  as  equivalent  to  the 
visible  Church  on  earth,  as  in  Matt.  xiii.  47.  "  The  king- 
dom of  Heaven  is  like  unto  a  net,  that  was  cast  into  the 
sea,  and  gathered  of  every  kind."  At  other  times,  it  is 
used  to  signify  the  Church  of  God  in  her  state  of  glory, 
as  in  1  Cor.  xv.  60.  "  Now  this  I  say,  brethren,  that 
flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 

2.  "  Of  such."  On  this  phrase.  Dr.  Carson  remarks : 
"'The  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  of  such,'  cannot  possibly 
mean  that  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  of  them.  The  term 
such  does  not  signify  identity,  cannot  signify  identity,  but 
likeness.' "  '' 

Let  us  see  if  Scriptural  usage  will  bear  out  this  positive 
assertion  of  Dr.  Carson.  Eom.  i.  23.  "  Who  knowing  the 
judgment  of  God,  that  they  which  commit  such  things  " 
{i.  e.,  the  very  crimes  which  Paul  has  just  before  speci- 
fied), "  are  worthy  of  death ;  not  only  do  the  same,  but 
have  pleasure  in  them  that  do  them."  1  Cor.  v.  11. 
"  But  now,  I  have  written  unto  you,  not  to  keep  compa- 
ny, if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  fornicator,  or 
covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an 
extortioner,  with  such  an  one"  {i.  e.,  with  the  very  per- 
sons specified),  "  no,  not  to  eat."  Gal.  v.  21.  "  Envy- 
ings,  murders,  revellings,  drunkenness,  and  such  like " 
(here,  such  signifies  likeness ;  but  the  word  used  in  the 
Greek  is  different  from  the  word  used  by  our  Lord,  in  the 
passage  under  examination),  "  of  the  which  I  tell  you  be- 
fore, as  I  have  also  told  you  in  time  past,  that  they  which 
do  such  things  "  (here,  the  word  used  is  the  same  with 
that  used  by  our  Lord,  and  evidently  means,  these  very 
things,  envyings,  murders,  and  such  like),  "shall  not  in- 
herit the  kingdom  of  God."  1  Tim.  vi.  4,  5.  "  He  is 
proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  questions  and 
strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railing,  evil 
surmisings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds 
and  destitute  of  the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godli- 
ness.    From  siich,"  i.  e.,  from  the  very  persons  just  de- 

'  Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  200. 


Christ's  Recognition  of  Infant  Memherahip. 


IGl 


scribed),  "  withdraw  thyself."  Ill  Jno.  7,  8.  "  Because 
that  for  his  name's  sake  they  went  forth,  taking  nothing 
of  the  Gentiles.  We  therefore  ought  to  receive  such" 
{i.  e.,  these  very  persons,  and  others  like  them),  "  that  we 
mio:ht  be  fellow  helpers  to  the  truth."  Acts  xix.  25. 
"Whom  he,"  Demetrius,  "called  together,  with  men  of 
like  occupation  "  (the  word  here  translated  like  is  the 
same  rendered  such  in  the  passage  under  examination ; 
and  "like  occupation  "  here  means  of  the  occupation  of 
Demetrius,  as  is  evident  from  what  follows),  "  and  said, 
Sirs,  ye  know  that  by  this  craft  we  have  our  wealth." 
These  instances  of  the  use  of  this  phrase  "of  stich,"  have 
not  been  selected  to  serve  a  purpose ;  but  turning  to 
KDbinson's  New  Testament  Lexicon,  we  have  given  all  the 
instances  there  cited,  excepting  one,  viz.  Mark  ix.  37,  a 
pxssaga  very  similar  to  the  one  under  examination.  And 
now  we  ask  the  reader,  does  Scriptural  usage  give  any 
countenance  to  Dr.  Carson's  remark,  "'The  kingdom  of 
H3avea  is  o/si4c/i,' cannot  possibly  mean  that  the  king^ 
dom  oiKea^vea  is,  of  the)n?"  On  the  contrary,  Scriptu- 
ral usage  will  allow  us  to  understand  "  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  of  sush,"  in  no  other  way  than  either  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven  is  of  them,  or  of  them  and  those  like  them. 

Dr.  Gill  explains  the  passage  we  are  examining  as  fol- 
lows (and  the  explanation  of  every  Baptist  expositor, 
whose  writings  we  have  seen,  is  substantially  the  same,) 
"  It  is,  as  if  our  Lord  would  say,  don't  drive  away  these 
children  from  my  person  and  presence ;  they  are  lively 
emblems  of  the  proper  subjects  of  a  Gospel  Church-state, 
and  of  such  as  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  by 
these  I  may  instruct  and  point  out  to  you  what  converted 
persons  should  be,  who  have  a  place  in  my  Church  below, 
and  expect  to  enter  into  my  kingdom  and  glory  above — 
they  are,  or  ought  to  be,  like  such  children,  harmless  and 
inoffensive,  free  from  rancor  and  malice." 

To  this  exposition  we  object :  1.  It  assigns  to  the 
phrase  of  "such"  an  unusual  meaning,  and  one  which,  we 
believe,  it  never  has  in  Scripture.  2.  It  makes  our  Lord 
say  that  which  is  in  no  way  pertinent  to  the  occasion. 
The   children   were  brought  to   him   expressly,  that  he 


162  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

miglit  pray  for  and  bless  them.  3.  Thus  understood,  our 
Lord's  words  convey  no  reproof  to  his  disciples,  and  yet 
they  are  spoken  when  he  is  "  much  displeased "  with 
them. 

We  would  understand  by  "the  kingdom  of  heaven  or 
God  "  here,  the  visible  Church ;  and  most  Baptist  writers 
agree  with  us  on  this  point.  That  Church,  however,  was 
the  Old  Testament  Church,  for  '^the  "  day  of  Pentecost  had 
not  yet  come.  These  children  being  tlie  children  of  Jewish 
parents,  had,  doubtless,  been  introduced  as  infant  members 
into  that  Church,  by  their  reception  of  circumcision  when 
eight  days  old,  and  this,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  was 
by  divine  appointment.  If,  now,  we  understand  our 
Lord's  words  "  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  " 
simply  to  assert  the  church-membership  of  these  "  little 
ones,  infants,"  they  assert  nothing  but  what  is  confessedly 
a  fact ;  and  just  the  very  fact,  of  all  others,  which  is  per- 
tinent to  the  occasion.  What  more  conclusive  reason  can 
he  assign,  why  parents  should  be  encouraged  to  bring 
their  infant  children  to  him,  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God, 
that  he  may  bless  them,  than  that  God  himself  has  in- 
cluded them  in  his  precious  covenant?  What  more 
solemn  rebuke  can  he  administer  to  his  disciples  than  by 
saying  in  substance,  God  does  not  disdain  to  notice  these 
little  ones ;  and  in  casting  them  off  ye  are  making  your- 
selves wiser  than  God,  and  setting  yourselves  in  opposition 
to  him  ? 

Thus  understanding  our  Lord's  words,  how  naturally 
does  the  declaration  follow,  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a 
little  child  "  (i.  e.,  in  the  teachable  spirit  of  a  little  child), 
he  shall  not  enter  therein."  It  was  the  overweening  confi- 
dence of  the  disciples  in  their  own  judgment,  which  had  led 
them  to  do  that  for  which  our  Lord  has  reproved  them ; 
because  they  were  guided  by  their  own  sense  of  what  was  fit 
and  proper,  rather  than  by  the  plain  instructions  of  God's 
Word,  they  had  fallen  into  this  error.  And  now,  he  would 
guard  them  against  such  danger  for  the  future. 

But,  after  all,  it  may  be  said,  these  children  were  not 
baptized.      Certainly  not.      Christian   baptism   had   not 


Christ's  Iic-coni7nissio7i  of  Peter.  1G3 

been  instituted.  These  infants  were,  in  virtue  of  their  cir- 
cumcision, members  of  the  visible  Church  (the  Jewish 
Church,  not  as  yet  finally  cast  off,  for  the  Jews  had  not 
then,  by  the  crucitixion  of  their  Messiah,  "  filled  up  the 
measure  of  their  iniquities,")  and  on  this  account,  even 
had  Christian  baptism  then  been  practised,  there  would 
have  been  no  propriety  in  administering  it  to  them. 

In  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  "  Suffer  little  children 
to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  we  have  his  distinct  and  emphatic  re- 
cognition of  infant  membership  in  the  Church  of  God  (the 
Old  Testament  Church,  it  is  true,  but  not  on  that  account 
the  less  the  Church  of  God)  as  existing  toward  the  close  of 
his  public  ministry,  and  this,  without  the  slightest  intima- 
tion that  such  membership  was  ever  to  cease  in  that  Church. 
On  the  contrary,  the  recognition  is  made  in  circumstances 
strongly  implying  its  continuance,  since  it  is  made  in  re- 
buking the  disposition  manifested  by  his  disciples,  those 
by  whom  the  requisite  changes  in  that  Church  were  to  be 
carried  forward  and  perfected,  to  account  such  member- 
ship of  little  value. 

§54.  John  xxi.  15. 

John  xxi.  15. — "  So  when  they  had  dined,  Jesus  saith 
to  Simon  Peter,  Simon  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me 
more  than  these?  He  saith  unto  him:  Yea,  Lord: 
thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  He  saith  unto  him, 
Feed  my  lambs." 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  in  these  words  and  those 
recorded  in  the  two  verses  immediately  following,  we 
have  "  our  Lord's  renewal  of  Peter's  appointment  to  the 
ministerial  and  apostolic  office."  Peter's  denial  of  his 
master  "had,  undoubtedly,  rendered  him  unworthy  of  the 
Apostleship  ;  for  how  could  he  be  capable  of  instructing 
others  in  the  faith,  who  had  basely  revolted  from  it  ?  He 
had  been  made  an  Apostle,  but  it  was  along  with  Judas, 
and  from  the  time  when  he  had  abandoned  his  post,  he 
had  likewise  been  deprived  of  the  honor  of  Apostleship. 


164:  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Now,  therefore,  the  liberty  as  well  as  authority  of  teach- 
ing is  restored  to  him.  Such  a  restoration  was  necessary, 
both  for  Peter  and  for  his  hearers.  For  Peter,  that  he 
might  the  more  boldly  execute  his  office,  being  assured  of 
the  calling  with  which  Christ  had  again  invested  him. 
For  his  hearers,  that  the  stain  which  attached  to  his  per- 
son, might  not  be  the  occasion  of  despismg  the  Gospel. 
To  us,  also,  in  the  present  day,  it  is  of  very  great  import- 
ance that  Peter  comes  forth  to  us  as  a  new  man,  from 
whom  the  disgrace  that  might  have  lessened  his  authority 
has  been  removed."    (Calvin's  Commentary.) 

Let  the  reader  notice  now  the  terms  in  which  this  re- 
newal of  Peter's  apostolic  authority  is  first  given — "  Feed 
my  larabs."  And  let  him  remember,  at  the  same  time, 
that  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  Christ  is  described 
as  one  who  "  shall  feed  his  fiock  like  a  shepherd ;  shall 
gather  the  lambs  with  his  arms,  and  carry  them  in  his 
bosom,  and  shall  gently  lead  those  that  are  with  young." 
(Isa.  xl.  11.)  And  let  him  remember,  too,  the  rebuke 
which,  a  little  while  before,  Christ  has  given  Peter,  in 
common  with  other  disciples,  in  his  words,  "Suffer  the 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  (Mark  x.  14.)  And 
then  ask  himself,  How  must  Peter  have  understood  his 
Lord's  words — "  Feed  my  lar/ibs  ?  "  Do  they  not  contain 
a  very  strong  intimation,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  that  infant- 
membership  is  to  continue  in  the  Church  of  God,  under 
Peter's  apostleship?  Are  they  not  unaccountable,  on  the 
supposition  that  such  membership  is,  from  that  time,  to 
cease? 

§55.    ^cts  ii.  38,  39;  iii.  24-26. 

Acts  ii.  38,  39.  "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Eepent, 
and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise 
is  to  you. and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are 
afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call." 


Peter's  Preaching  of  Christian  Baptlfrn.        165 

Acts  iii.  2-4-26.  "  Yea,  and  all  the  prophets  from  Samuel, 
and  those  that  follow  after,  as  many  as  have  spoken, 
have  likewise  foretold  of  these  days.  Ye  are  the  child- 
ren of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant  whicn  God 
made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  And 
in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be 
blessed.  Unto  you  first,  God  having  raised  up  his 
Son  Jesus,  sent  him  to  bless  you  in  turnmg  away 
every  one  of  you  from  his  iniquities." 

The  passage  first  quoted  above  is  the  conclusion  of 
Peter  s  address  to  the  multitude,  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost. 
The  other  is  the  conclusion  of  a  public  address  of  his,  de- 
livered a  few  days  later,  in  very  similar  circumstances. 
In  each  case,  he  is  evidently  urging  upon  his  hearei-s  an 
immediate  repentance,  for  the  reason  that  this  was  em- 
phatically their  day  of  grace,  and  a  day  of  grace  granted 
them  in  fulfillment  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham. 
(Acts  iii.  2-5,  26.) 

"When,  then,  in  his  first  address,  he  says,  "the  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
ofi","  to  what  promise  does  he  refer?  Undoubtedly,  we 
think,  to  the  promise  which  God  had  included  in  his  cove- 
nant with  Abraham.  And  when  we  turn  to  that  promise, 
"we  find  it  answering,  in  every  particular,  to  Peter's  words, 
as  here  recorded.  "And  I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
gfnerations,for  an  everlasting  covenant;  to  be  a  God  unto 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  (Gen,  xvii.  7.)  There 
is  the  promise,  "to  you  and  to  your  children;"  "for  a 
father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee."  (Gen.  xvii.  5.) 
There  is  the  promise,  as  Paul  explains  it  in  Rom.  iv.  13- 
17,  "to  all  that  are  afar  ofi",  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call." 

Let  the  reader  notice  now,  that  this  address  was  made 
by  Peter,  on  the  occasion  when  Christian  baptism  was 
first  preached  to  the  people.  That  it  was  addressed  ex- 
clusively to  Jews  and  Jewish  proselytes,  at  Jerusalem,  and 
by  Peter,  himself  a  Jew.  That  the  only  way  into  the 
Church  of  Christ,  of  which  any  of  the  parties  had  a  know- 


166-  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

ledge  then,  was  througli  the  Old  Testament  Church,  for  it 
was  not  until  some  time  after  this,  at  the  house  of  Corne- 
lius, that  the  first  Gentile  was  received  directly  into  the 
Church;  and  from  Peter's  conduct  on  that  occasion,  it  is 
evident,  that  up  to  that  time,  neither  he  nor  the  other 
apostles  understood  God's  purposes  in  this  particular. 
And  we  ask,  is  not  Peter's  paraphrase  of  God's  promise  to 
Abraham,  "  for  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  child- 
ren," unaccountable,  if  the  initiatory  rite  in  the  Church  of 
God  is  now,  for  the  first  time,  to  be  refused  to  the  children 
of  the  believer?  How  must  the  Jews  have  understood 
Peter,  when  he  calls  upon  them,  by  repentance  and  bap- 
tism, to  enter  the  Christian  Church,  assigning  as  the  special 
reason  why  they  should  do  so,  God's  promise  to  Abra- 
ham, which  was  made,  says  he,  "  to  you  and  to  your 
children?"  It  would  be  strange  indeed,  had  they  under- 
stood him  to  speak  of  any  other  way  than  that  in  which 
they  and  their  fathers  had  always  entered  into  the  Church 
of  God,  from  the  time  that  promise  was  given — i.  e.,  the 
infant  children  entering  in  company  with  the  believing 
parent. 

§  56.  Significant  silence  of  the  Jews. 

Supposing  that  the  change  in  the  constitution  of  tho 
Church  of  God,  for  which  the  Baptist  contends — viz.,  the 
abrogation  of  infant  membership  in  that  Church — had 
been  made,  the  question  at  once  arises,  "  How  must  such 
a  measure  have  operated  upon  the  feelings  of  a  believing 
Jew  ?  " 

"Tenacious,  in  a  high  degree,  of  their  peculiarities,  re- 
garding their  relation  to  Abraham  as  momentous  to  their 
individual  happiness,  and  as  the  most  prominent  feature 
of  their  national  glory ;  knowing,  too,  that  their  children- 
were  comprised  with  themselves  in  the  covenant  of  God;' 
it  is  not  possible  that  the  Hebrews  could  have  submitted, 
without  reluctance,  to  a  constitution  which  was  to  strip 
them  of  their  favorite  privilege,  to  dissever  their  tenderest 
ties,  to  blot  the  names  of  their  little  ones  out  of  the  regis- 
ter of  God's  people,  to  treat  them  afterwards,  from  gene- 
ration to  genex'ation,  as  the  little  ones  of  the  heathen  man 


Significant  Silence  of  the  Jcios.  167 

and  the  publican !  On  every  other  prerogative,  real  or 
imaginary,  their  suspicion  was  awake,  their  zeal'was  in- 
flammable, their  passions  intractable;  but  toward  this, 
their  grand  prerogative,  they  evince  a  tameness  which  re- 
quired them  to  forget,  at  once,  that  they  were  men,  and 
that  they  were  Jews. 

"  Search  the  records  of  the  New  Testament  from  one  end 
to  the  other,  and  you  will  not  find  the  trace  of  a  remon- 
strance, an  objection,  or  a  difficulty  on  this  subject,  from 
the  mouth  of  a  believing  or  an  unbelieving  Israelite ! 
The  former  never  parted  with  a  tittle  of  even  the  Mosaic 
law,  till  the  will  of  God  was  so  clearly  demonstrated  as  to 
remove  every  doubt ;  the  latter  lay  constantly  in  wait  for 
matter  of  accusation  against  the  Christians.  Nothing 
could  have  prompted  him  to  louder  clamor,  to  fiercer 
resistance,  or  to  heavier  charges,  than  an  attempt  to 
overturn  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham ;  nothing  could  have  more  startled  and  dis- 
tressed the  meek  and  modest  disciple.  Yet  that  attempt 
is  made ;  that  fundamental  principle  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  is  overturned  ;  and  not  a  friend  complains,  nor  a 
foe  resents !  What  miracle  of  enchantment  has  so  in- 
stantaneously relieved  the  conscience  of  the  one,  and 
calmed  the  wrath  of  the  other  ?  "Where  is  that  wayward 
vanity,  that  captious  criticism,  that  combustible  tempera- 
ment, that  insidious,  implacable,  restless  enmity,  which 
by  night  and  by  day,  in  country  and  in  town,  haunted 
the  steps  of  the  Apostles,  and  treasured  up  actions,  words, 
looks,  for  the  hour  of  convenient  vengeance  ?  All  gone  ; 
dissipated  in  a  moment!  The  proud  and  persecuting 
Pharisee  rages  at  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ;  fights  for 
his  traditions  and  his  phylacteries ;  and  utters  not  a  syl- 
lable of  dissent  from  a  step  which  completely  annihilates 
the  covenant  with  Abraham !  that  very  covenant  from- 
which  he  professes  to  derive  his  whole  importance !  We 
can  believe  a  good  deal,  but  not  quite  so  much  as  this. 

"  Should  it  be  alleged  that  the  Jews  did  probably  op- 
pose the  exclusion  of  their  infants  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment Church,  although  the  sacred  writers  have  omitted 
to  mention  it:  we  reply, 


i68  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

"  That  although  many  things  have  happened  which 
were  never  recorded — and,  therefore,  that  the  mere  si- 
lence of  an  historian,  is  not,  in  itself,  conclusive  against 
their  existence — yet  no  man  may  assume,  as  proof,  the 
existence  of  a  fact  which  is  unsupported  by  either  history 
or  tradition.  On  this  ground,  the  plea  which  we  have 
stopped  to  notice  is  perfectly  nugatory. 

"  In  the  present  case,  however,  the  probabilities  look 
all  the  other  way.  We  mean,  that  if  the  Jews  had  made 
the  opposition,  which,  on  the  supposition  we  are  com- 
bating, it  is  inconceivable  they  should  not  have  made,  it 
would  have  been  so  interwoven  with  the  origin,  constitu- 
tion, progress  and  transactions  of  the  primitive  Church, 
as  to  have  rendered  an  omission  of  it  almost  impossible. 

"  The  question  about  circumcision  and  the  obligation 
of  the  Gentile  converts  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses,  shook 
the  Churches  to  their  centre;  and  was  not  put  at  rest  but 
by  a  final  decision  of  the  Apostles  and  elders  (see  Acts 
XV.)  Now,  as  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  which  expressly  constituted  infants  members 
of  the  Church,  is  it  to  be  imagined  that  so  hot  a  contro- 
versy should  be  kindled  about  the  ensealing  rite,  and 
none  at  all  about  the  privilege  sealed  ?  or  that  a  record 
should  have  been  carefully  preserved  of  the  disputes  and 
decision  concerning  the  sign,  and  no  record  at  all  of  the 
thing  signified,  which  imparted  to  the  former  all  its  in- 
terest and  value  ? 

"  It  is,  therefore,  utterly  incredible  that  the  resistance 
of  the  Jews  to  the  Christian  arrangement  for  shutting  out 
their  children  from  the  Church  of  God,  should  have 
passed  unnoticed.  But  no  notice  of  any  such  resistance 
is  contained  in  the  New  Testament.  The  conclusion  is, 
that  no  such  resistance  was  ever  offered :  and  the  conclu- 
sion again  is,  that  no  cause  for  it  ever  existed ;  that  is, 
that  the  infants  of  professing  parents  were  considered  as 
holding,  under  the  new  economy,  the  same  place  and  rela,- 
ti'on  which  they  held  under  the  old."^ 

1  J.  M.  Mason's  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  367-371. 


lafani  Membership  Recognized.  169 


CHAPTER    VII. 

INFANT  MEMBERSHIP  RECOGNIZED  BY  GIVING  TO  CHIL- 
DREN THE  PECULIAR  TITLES  BELONGING  TO  CHURCH 
MEMBERS. 

§57.  Names  ^ven  to  Church  Members  in  Scripture.     g58.  Eph.  i.  1,  and  vi.  1-3; 
Col.  1. 1,  2,  and  iii.  20.    g  59.  Titus  i.  6.    g  60.  1  Cor.  vii.  12-14. 

§  57.    Names  given  to   Church  Members  in  the  days  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

The  name  "  Christian'  was  not  given  to  the  followers  of 
Jesus,  until  some  years  after  the  death  of  our  Lord  (see 
Acts  xi.  26).  It  eventually  became  the  common  name  by 
which  the  members  of  the  Church  were  designated,  yet 
such  was  not  the  case  during  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  It 
is  a  name  used  but  twice  in  the  whole  New  Testament ; 
once  by  Agrippa,  when  he  addresses  Paul,  "Almost  thou 
persuadest  me  to  be  a  Christian "  (Acts  xxvi.  28),  and 
once  by  Peter,  in  his  first  epistle,  written  about  A.  D.  63, 
"  Yet  if  any  man  suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be 
ashamed  "  (1  Peter  iv.  16). 

The  names  which  the  Jews  gave  them,  were  intended 
as  names  of  reproach ;  such  as  Galileans  (Acts  ii.  7),  and 
Nazarenes  (Acts  xxiv.  5). 

The  names  which  Christians  assumed  for  themselves, 
and  by  which  they  are  ordinarily  designated  in  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures,  are,  disciples  (Acts  i,  15),  brethren 
(Acts  i.  16),  faithful  or  believers  (Acts  ii.  44),  saints  or 
holy  ones  (Acts  ix.  13),  elect  (II  John  1),  and  people  of 
God  (1  Peter  ii.  10). 

Of  these,  the  names  most  commonly  used  in  the  New 
Testament  are  (agioi)  saints  or  holy  ones,  and  (pistoi) 
8 


170  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

faithful,  believers,  or  (pi  pisteuontes  or  pisteusantes)  those 
believing  or  those  that  believed.  These  titles  were  in  use 
among  the  Jews  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  are  fre- 
quently to  be  met  with,  especially  the  title  saints,  in  the 
Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
"  Originally,  these  terras  were  descriptive  of  moral  quality, 
but  in  process  of  time,  the  common  acceptation  of  them  be- 
came so  different  from  their  original  application,  that  they 
implied  nothing  more  than  the  distinctive  appellation  of  the 
Christian  community,  composed  both  of  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles," '  i.  €.,  they  were  used  to  designate  the  Church  mem- 
bership of  those  to  whom  they  were  applied.  No  more 
conclusive  evidence  of  this  could  be  given,  than  that 
afforded  in  the  fact,  that  whilst  Paul  addresses  seme  of  his 
epistles  to  the  Churches,  e.  g.,  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
(Gal.  i.  2),  his  first  and  second  Epistles  to  the  Thessaloni- 
ans  (I  Thes.  i.  1,  and  II  Thes.  i.  1),  he  addresses  others  to 
"  the  saints,"  or  "  saints  and  faithful  "  e.  g.,  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  (Bom.  i.  7),  his  first  and  second  Epistles  to 
the  Corinthians  (I  Cor.  i.  2,  and  II  Cor.  i.  1),  and  his  Epis- 
tles to  the  Ephesians  (Eph.  i.  1),  the  Philippians  (Phil.  i. 
1),  and  the  Colossians  (Col.  i,  2). 

In  this,  the  earlier  Christian  Fathers  followed  the  usage 
of  the  Apostles.  The  titles  Sauit  and  Faithful  or  Be- 
liever, were  given  by  them  to  very  young  children,  not  as 
persons  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  who  had  be- 
lieved to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  as  the  advocates  of 
baptismal  regeneration  contend,  but  as  those  who  had 
been  separated  unto  God's  service,  and  admitted  to  the  visi- 
ble Church.  For  abundant  evidence  of  the  use  of  these 
terms,  in  this  sense,  the  reader  is  referred  to  "  Taylor's 
Facts  and  Evidences,"  pp.  100-113.^ 

And  here,  we  ask  the  reader  to  notice  just  what  it  is  for 
which  we  contend,  respecting  the  use  of  the  terms  saints 

1  Colman's  Ancient  Christianity,  p.  102. 

'  Among  other  instances,  Taj'lor  quotes  certain  sepulchral  inscriptions, 
copied  from  the  Catacombs  at  Rome,  dating  back  to  the  time  of  the 
primitive  persecutions,  such  as,  "  Cyriacus,  a  faithful  or  believer,  died, 
a,ged  eight  days  less  than  three  years." 


Infant  Memhership  li^cognlzed.  171 

ii,nd  faithful  or  believers.  It  is  not  that  they  are  always 
used  in  the  sense  of  Church  members ;  but  that  they  are 
often  used  in  this  sense  (as  when  used  by  Paul  in  the  ad- 
dress of  several  of  his  epistles),  and  that  we  are  to  de- 
termine, in  each  particular  instance,  whether  they  are 
used  in  this  or  their  original  sense,  by  an  examination  of 
the  context.  In  other  words,  that  these  titles  were  used 
in  the  Apostles'  day  very  much  as  we  use  the  title  Chris- 
tian at  the  present  day. 

As  instances  of  the  use  of  the  terms  (agioi)  saints  or 
holy  om's  and  (pistoi)  faithful  or  believers,  in  the  sense  of 
Church  members,  and  their  application  to  children,  we 
.quote,  Eph.  i.  1 ;  Col.  i.  1,  2;  Titus,  i.  6,  7  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

§  58.  Ephesians  i.  1,  and  Colossians  i.  1,  2. 

Eph.  i.  1.  "  Paul,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  will 
of  God,  to  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephesus,  and  to 
ih.e  faithful"   (pistois,  believers),  "in  Christ  Jesus." 

Eph.  vi.  1-3.  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord, 
for  this  is  right.  Honor  thy  father  and  mother 
(which  is  the  first  commandment  with  promise).  That 
it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  that  thou  mayest  live 
long  on  the  earth." 

Col.  i.  1,  2.  "  Paul,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  will 
of  G-od,  and  Timotheus  our  brother.  To  the  saints 
and  faithful"  (believing)  "brethren  in  Christ  which 
are  at  Colosse." 

Col.  iii.  20.  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  all  things ; 
for  this  is  well  pleasing  unto  the  Lord." 

These  two  passages  are  here  placed  together,  because 
the  case  presented  in  both  is  substantially  the  same,  and 
that  case  may  be  thus  stated : 

Paul  addresses  an  epistle  to  certain  persons  at  Ephesus, 

"  Eu'tafia,  the  mothftr,  places  this  in  commemoration  of  her  son  Poly- 
chromio,  a,  faithful  or  believer,  who  lived  three  years." 

"  Urcia  Florentia,  a,  faithful  or  believer,  rests  here  in  peace.  She  lived 
five  years,  eight  months  and  eight  days." 

Taylor's  "Facts  and  Evidences"  p.  106. 


172  The  Doetrine  of  Baptisms. 

whom  lie  styles  "  saints  and  faithfuls  " '  in  Christ  Jesus. 
After  explaining  certain  Gospel  truths,  in  which  he  deems 
it  important  that  they  should  be  more  fully  instructed 
than  they  have  yet  been  ; — toward  the  close  of  the  Epis- 
tle he  takes  occasion  to  give  some  advice  and  admonition  of 
a  more  practical  character.  This  advice,  instead  of  being 
addressed  to  the  Church  as  a  body,  is  addressed  specifically 
to  the  several  classes  of  persons  who  make  up  the  Church, 
or  the  body  of  saints  and  faithfuls  at  Ephesus. 

He  first  addresses  himself  to  wives  and  husbands.  Is, 
now,  the  question  asked,  What  wives  and  husbands?  we 
answer.  Those  that  are  saints  and  faithfuls ;  as  is  deter- 
mined by  the  address  of  the  Epistle.  And  this,  our  con-, 
elusion,  is  confirmed,  by  the  arguments  with  which  Paul 
enforces  the  duties  enjoined.  "  Therefore,  as  the  Church 
is  subject  unto  Christ,  so  let  the  wives  be  to  their  own 
husbands  in  everything.  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even 
as  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  himself  for  it." 
(Eph.  v.  24,  25.)  For  Paul  to  address  such  arguments  as 
these  to  the  heathen,  or  to  any  other  husbands  and  wives 
than  such  as  were  "  saints  and  faithfuls,"  would  be  folly. 

He  afterwards  addresses  himself  to  servants  and  masters. 
Is  now  the  question  asked,  What  servants  and  masters  ? 
we  answer  as  before.  Those  that  are  "  saints  and  faithfuls," 
as  is  determined  by  the  address  of  the  epistles.  And 
here,  again,  the  arguments  by  which  Paul  enforces  the 
duties  enjoined  confirm  the  conclusion.  "  Servants,  be 
ot)edient  to  them  that  are  your  masters,  according  to  the 
flesh,  with  fear  and  trembling,  in  singleness  of  your  heart 
as  unto  Christ.  And  ye  masters,  do  the  same  things  unto 
them,  forbearing  threatening ;  knowing  that  your  Master 
also  is  in  heaven  ;  neither  is  there  any  respect  of  persons 
with  him."  (Eph.  vi.  5,  9.)  Such  arguments  could  have  no 
influence  with  heathen  servants  and  masters.  And,  as  if 
to  make  this  matter  more  plain,  he  follows  up  his  address 
to  these  several  classes  of  persons  with,  *'  Finally,  my 
brethren,  be  strong  in  the  Lord,  and  in  the  power  of  his 
might"  (v.  10). 

1  We  use  the  terms  faithful  &nd  faithfuls  as  nouns,  in  conformity  with 
the  use  of  the  corresponding  terms  in  the  Greek.  '^ 


Infant  Mcinhevship  RecognUed.  173 

Between  his  address  to  wives  and  husbands,  and  that 
to  servants  and  masters,  Paul  addresses  himself  to  chil- 
dren and  parents.  Does  any  one  ask,  What  children  and 
parents  ?  we  answer  in  this,  as  in  the  other  cases,  to  such 
as  are  saints  and  faithfuls,  as  is  determined  by  the  address 
of  the  Epistle.  And  this,  our  conclusion,  is  confirmed  by 
Paul's  arguments,  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  the 
Lord ;  for  this  is  right.  Honor  thy  father  and  mother 
(which  is  the  first  commandment  with  promise).  And  ye 
fathers,  provoke  not  your  children  to  wrath  ;  but  bring 
them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 
(Eph.  vi.  1,  2,  3.) 

Let  us  siqipose  an  analogous  case.  A  person  who  has 
long  been  interested  in  the  growth  of  the  city  of  Norfolk, 
and  has  labored  so  much  and  so  faithfully  to  promote  its 
growth,  as  to  be  regarded  with  great  respect  by  the  in- 
habitants of  that  city,  has,  in  his  old  age,  published  a  let- 
ter addressed  To  the  Citizens  of  Norfolk.  In  this  letter, 
after  dwelling  upon  certain  matters  which  concern  the 
general  growth  of  the  city,  and  to  which  it  becomes  all 
alike  to  give  heed ;  toward  the  clo^e  of  his  letter,  he  gives 
certain  specific  advice,  to  "  merchants  and  mechanics,"  to 
"  the  rich  and  to  the  poor,"  to  "  masters  and  servants." 
-Would  any  one  hesitate  to  understand  the  advice  "  to 
merchants  and  mechanics,"  as  intended  for  such  merchants 
and  mechanics  as  were  citizens  of  Norfolk  ? 

Supposing,  now,  that  two  thousand  years  after  this  let- 
ter is  written,  the  question  should  arise,  Were  mechanics 
admitted  to  the  rights  of  citizenship  in  Norfolk  two  thou- 
sand years  ago  ?  This  letter  is  produced  ;  no  one  ques- 
tions its  genuineness  or  its  authenticity.  The  letter  bears 
the  superscription.  To  the  Citizens  of  Norfolk.  Attention 
is  called  to  the  fact,  that  in  the  course  of  the  letter,  not 
only  "  the  rich  and  the  poor,"  "  masters  and  servants," 
are  specifically  addressed,  but  also  "  merchants  and  me- 
chanics."  Would  not  this  fact  alone  be  decisive  oi  the 
question  with  every  ingenuous  inquirer  ? 

To  the  idea  that  the  children  here  addressed  were  such 
as  had  been  received  into  the  Church  upon  their  own 
credible  profession  of  faith,  we  object. 


174  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

1.  Tlie  duty  enjoined  upon  children,  "obey  your  parents 
in  the  Lord,"  is  a  duty  binding  upon  children  from  the 
first  dawn  of  moral  agency,  and  is  enforced  by  reference 
to  the  fifth  commandment,  "  Honor  thy  father  and  thy 
mother,"  a  commandment  confessedly  binding  from  the 
same  period  of  life.  And  both  the  duty  enjoined,  and  the 
commandment  by  which  it  is  enforced,  have  an  especial 
reference  to  early  childhood. 

2.  The  exhortation  addressed  to  fathers,  which  is  but 
the  counterpart  of  that  addressed  to  children,  would  be 
out  of  place  if  the  children  were  grown,  or  nearly  so. 
"  And  ye  fathers,  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord."  If  they  were  already  intelligent 
believers,  prepared  to  be  received  into  the  Church  upon 
their  own  credible  profession  of  faith,  "bringing  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  "  would  be  no  longer 
needed  by  them ;  the  time  for  such  treatment  on  the  part 
of  the  parent  would  be  passed.  But  understand  Paul  to 
speak  of  children  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  that  term, 
and  children  who  had  been  brought  into  the  Church, 
entered  in  the  school  of  .Christ,  as  children  were  under  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation,  and  no  more  appropriate  ex- 
hortation could  be  addressed  to  their  believing  parents 
than  "  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of 
the  Lord."  This  is  just  the  sum  and  the  substance  of  the 
parent's  covenant  engagements  with  respect  to  his  chil- 
dren, in  taking  Jehovah  to  be  "  the  God  of  his  seed  after 
him,"  as  well  as  "  his  God." 

As  already  remarked,  the  case  presented  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  is  substantially  the  same  with  that  pre- 
sented in  Ephesians,  the  case  which  we  have  been  examin- 
ing. In  these  two  Epistles,  then,  and  they  are  the  only 
ones  in  which  Paul  specifies  different  classes  of  persons  as 
making  up  the  churcnes  addressed,  he  mentions  children 
among  those  classes. 

§  59.  Titus  i.  6. 

Titus  i.  6,  7.  "  If  any  be  blameless,  the  husband    of   one 
wife,  having  faithful  {believing)  children,  not  accused ' 


Infant  Membership  Recognized.  175 

of  riot,  or  unruly.     For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless, 
as  the  steward  of  God." 


Compare  with  this,    1  Timothy,  iii.  4,  5.      A  bishop 
then  must  be, 

I  Timothy  iii.  4,  5.  "  One  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house, 
having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all  g  ravity  : 
(For  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house, 
how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  Church  of  God  ?  ") 


Doddridge  paraphrases  this  passage,  "  And  let  him  be 
one  that  hath  believing  children,  if  he  have  any  that  are 
grown  XLjp!' 

The  interpolation  of  a  phrase  which  so  completely  sets 
aside  the  natural  meaning  of  the  text,  as  this  does,  is 
taking  a  liberty  with  the  Word  of  God,  which  nothing  but 
the  most  obvious  necessity  can  justify ;  and  for  which, 
even  then,  we  should  have  very  clear  authority  from  the 
context.  If  we  disregard  this  plain  rule  of  interpretation, 
the  "Word  of  God  may  be  made  to  teach  whatever  the  ex- 
positor pleases.  No  such  necessity  exists  in  the  case 
before  us.  If  we  understand  ^'faithful  children''  here,  in 
the  sense  of  children  that  are  Church  members,  we  get  an 
intelligible  interpretation  of  the  text  without  adding  one 
word  to  what  Paul  has  written,  or  taking  one  word 
from  it. 

In  favor  of  this  interpretation,  we  urge  : 

1.  It  assigns  to  the  word  "  faithful "  a  common  Scrip- 
tural sense  of  that  word ;  and  to  the  word  "  children  "  its 
most  common  signification. 

2.  It  harmonizes  Paul's  directions  respecting  the  quali- 
fications of  a  bishop,  given  to  Titus,  with  those  given  to 
Timothy,  directions  which  were  undoubtedly  intended  io 
be  one  in  meaning.  To  "  rule  well  one's  own  house,  hav- 
ing his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity,"  in  the 
Scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  rule  (see  Pom.  xiii.  3)  is  to 
"  bring  up  one's  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord,"  and  this  is  what  a  parent  covenants  to  do 


176  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

when  his  children  are  made  "  faithful,"  are  entered  as  in- 
fant members  in  the  Church  of  God. 

3.  It  makes  the  fitness  of  a  person,  for  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  to  depend  upon  something  lor  which  he  can  pro- 
perly be  held  responsible,  and  not  upon  something  which 
rests  with  a  sovereign  God  alone.  No  parent  can  be  held 
directly  responsible  for  the  true  conversion  of  his  child  to 
God.  But  every  parent  may  most  properly  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  entering  into  covenant  with  God  on  behalf  of 
his  children,  and  for  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  covenant 
obligations.  There  can  be  no  clearer  evidence  that  such 
is  the  common  view  of  parental  responsibilities  entertained 
by  the  Church  at  large,  tlian  the  fact  that  no  Church  has 
ever  obeyed  this  injunction  of  Paul  in  the  sense  which 
Doddridge  and  most  Baptist  expositors  give  it.  There 
are  bishops  (in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term  bishop)  in 
all  our  Christian  Churches,  having  children  "  that  are 
grown  up  "  and  yet  unconverted,  and  no  one  thinks  of 
this  as  disqualifying  them  for  holding  the  office  of  a  bishop. 

§  60.  1  Corinthians  vii.  12-14. 

1  Cor.  vii.  12-14.  "  If  any  brother  have  a  wife  that  be- 
lieveth  not,  and  she  be  pleased  to  dwell  with  him,  let 
him  not  put  her  away.  And  the  woman  that  hath  a 
husband  that  believeth  not,  and  if  he  be  pleased  to 
dwell  with  her,  let  her  not  leave  him.  For  the  un- 
believing husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband :  else 
were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy  " 
[agia,  saints  or  holy  ones). 

The  law  of  Moses  expressly  prohibited  the  intermarriage 
of  the  Jews  with  the  heathen  Canaanites.  This  law  is  re- 
corded in  Deut.  vii.  2-4.  "  And  when  the  Lord  thy  God 
shall  deliver  them  before  thee,  thou  shalt  smite  them  and 
utterly  destroy  them,  thou  shalt  make  no  covenant  with 
them  nor  shew  mercy  upon  them ;  neither  shalt  thou 
make  marriages  with  them ;  thy  daughter  thou  shalt  not 
give  unto  his  son,  nor  his  daughter  shalt  thou  take  unto 


Infant  Memhershij)  Recognized.  177 

thy  son.  For  they  will  turn  away  thy  son  from  following 
me,  that  they  may  serve  other  gods."  Under  this  law, 
Ezra  required  the  Jew  who  had  married  a  wife  from 
among  the  Canaanites,  not  only  to  put  away  his  wife,  but 
required  that  the  children  be  sent  away  with  their  heathen 
mother  (Ezra  x.  3.)  Such  a  law  as  this  was  in  perfect 
keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  one 
great  object  of  which  was,  to  keep  the  Israelites  apart, 
a  separate  nation  in  the  earth,  until  the  coming  of  Christ. 

Most  of  the  differences  about  doctrine  which  harassed 
the  Church  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  originated  in  the 
over-zealous,  and  often  mistaken  attachment  of  the  con- 
verted Jews  to  the  law  of  Moses.  Bearing  these  facts  in 
mind,  it  will  be  no  matter  of  surprise  to  us  that  in  the 
Church  at  Corinth — a  Christian  Church,  in  the  midst  of  a 
heathen  city,  and  yet  embracing  among  its  members 
many  converted  Jews  (see  Acts  xviii.  1-17) — the  diffi- 
culty, which  Paul  is  here  resolving,  should  have  arisen. 
That  difficulty  is  about  the  continuance  of  the  marriage 
connection  between  a  believing  husband  or  wife,  and  an 
unbelieving  partner. 

That  difficulty  Paul  resolves  in  vers.  12,  13,  "  If  any 
brother  hath  a  wife  that  believeth  not,  and  she  be  pleased 
to  dwell  with  him,  let  him  not  put  her  away.  And  the 
woman  that  hath  a  husband  that  believeth  not,  and  if  he 
be  pleased  to  dwell  with  her,  let  her  not  leave  him."  Then, 
in  ver.  14,  as  we  understand  him,  Paul  gives — 1st.  A 
reason  for  this  decision  of  his,  "  for  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  by  "  (or  to — McKnight)  "the  wife,  and 
the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  "  (or  to)  "  the  husband." 
And,  2d.  A  statement  of  a  fact,  which,  upon  admitted 
Jewish  pnnciples,  proved  his  reason  for  his  decision  to  be 
a  valid  one,  "  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now 
are  they  holy:" — the  expression  "  else"  {epei  ara,  other- 
wise, certainly,  McKnight)  marking  this  connection  be- 
tween the  latter  clause  and  the  one  preceding  it. 

The  use  of  the  word  ^'sanctify  (ac/iazo)  in  the  sense  of 

purify,  cleanse,  is  veiy  common  in  the  Septuagint  version 

of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  (see  Lev.  viii.  10,  15,  30), 

and  in  the  same  sense  it  is  frequently  used  by  Paul  (see  1 

8* 


178  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Tim.  iv.  5;  Heb.  ix.  13).  An  unclean  [unsanctified)  person 
was  one  who  might  not  be  associated  with  by  God's  peo- 
ple. "And  Peter  said  unto  them" — i.  e.,  Cornelius  and 
those  assembled  in  the  house — -"  Ye  know  how  that  it  is  an 
unlawful  thing  for  a  man  that  is  a  Jew  to  keep  company 
with,  or  come  unto,  one  of  another  nation,  but  God  hath 
showed  me  that  I  should  not  call  any  man  common  or  un- 
clean "  (Acts  X.  28).  When,  then,  Paul  affirms,  "  the  un- 
believing husband  is  sanctified  bi/"  (or  to)  "the  wife;"  he 
means  that  such  a  husband  is  rendered  fit  for  intimate  as- 
sociation with,  to  the  wife.  This  is  just  what  he  needs  to 
affirm  in  solving  the  difficulty  which  has  been  proposed  to 
him. 

Then  follows  Paul's  proof  of  what  he  has  just  affirmed; 
"else"  (otherwise,  certainly)  ''were  your  children  unclean, 
but  now  are  they  hoh/."  The  law  of  Moses,  which  had 
given  rise  to  the  difficulty,  both  by  the  terms  of  the 
law  and  the  decision  of  Ezra,  includes  the  child  with 
the  heathen  parent  in  the  same  condemnation.  As  both 
stand  or  fall  together,  the  condition  of  the  one  may  be  in- 
ferred from  that  of  the  other.  Now,  it  is  the  unquestioned 
practice  of  the  Church  to  treat  the  children  of  such  a 
marriage  not  as  unclean,  i.e.,  unfit  to  be  associated  with, 
but  as  clean;  they  are  admitted  to  membership  in  the 
Church  of  God,  and  thus  become  holi/  {agia,  saints). 
Upon  Jewish  principles,  then,  it  is  evident  from  this  fact, 
that  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife  ought  to  be  ac- 
counted "sanctified  bi/"  (or  to)  the  believing  partner. 

It  has  been  objected  to  this  interpretation,  that  as  the 
words  holt/  (agia),  and  sanctify  {agiaza),  are  words  from 
the  same  root,  they  must  have  the  same  signification ;  and, 
consequently,  if  the  application  of  the  terra  holi/  to  the 
children  teaches  their  Church  membership,  the  application 
of  the  term  sanctify  to  the  heathen  parents  must  teach  their 
Church  membership  also.  To  this  we  reply,  such  a  con- 
sequence as  this  by  no  means  follows.  It  is  a  very  com- 
mon thing,  in  every  language,  for  a  noun  to  acquire  a 
secondary  meaning,  whilst  the  corresponding  verb  retains 
its  primitive  meaning  alone ;  and  so  also  for  a  verb  to  be 
used   in  a  secondary  sense,   in  which   the   corresponding 


Infant  Membership.  179 

In  the  case  before  us,  we  assign  to 
the  noun  agia  a  secondary  sense.  Of  its  use  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  this  sense  we  have  already  given  abundant 
proof  (see  §  57).  In  this  sense  the  verb  agiazo  is  never 
used,  we  believe,  by  the  sacred  writers. 

In  support  of  the  interpretation  which  we  have  given 
this  passage,  we  urge:  (1,)  It  assigns  to  the  words  "sanc- 
tify, unclean,  holy,"  a  sense  in  which  they  are  frequently 
used  in  the  New  Testament.  (2,)  It  gives  to  the  whole 
passage  a  meaning,  which  is  not  only  pertinent  to  the  po- 
sition which  it  occupies  in  Paul's  solution  of  the  difficulty 
proposed  to  him  (and  this  cannot  be  said  of  any  other  in- 
terpretation which  we  have  seen),  but  it  makes,  v.  14,  a 
decisive  argument  in  support  of  that  solution.  (3,)  It 
presents  us,  in  this  passage,  an  eminently  Pauline  argu- 
ment; a  solution  of  a  Jewish  difficulty  upon  admitted 
Jewish  principles. 

^  Thus,  in  English,  as  secondary  meanings  of  the  noun  Wash,  Webster 

fives,  "  2,  A  bog,  marsh  or  fen.     3,  A  cosmetic.     6,  "Waste  liquor  of  a 
itchen,  for  hogs.     10,  The  blade  of  an  oar."     The  verb  wash  has  no 
secondary  meanings  corresponding  to  these. 


180  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTEE    VIII. 

§  61.    FAMILY    BAPTISMS. 
Acts  xvi.  14, 15,  and  32-34;  1  Cor.  i.  13-17. 

§  61.  Family  Baptisms. 

Acts  xvi.,  14,  15,  32-34.  "  And  a  certain  woman, 
named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thya- 
tira,  which  worshipped  God,  heard  us :  whose  heart 
the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things 
spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her 
household  {oikos),  she  besought  us,  saying.  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my 
house,  and  abide  there.  And  she  constrained  us." 
"And  they  spake  unto  him  (the  jailer)  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house  (oikia).  And 
he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his 
straightway.  And  when  he  had  brought  them  into 
his  house  (oikos),  he  set  meat  before  them,  and  re- 
joiced, believing  in  God  with  all  his  house  "  (literally, 
''he  rejoiced  with  all  his  family  {oikos),  he  believing 
in  the  Lord." ) 

1  Cor.  i.,  13-17.  "Is  Christ  divided?  Was  Paul 
crucified  for  you?  or  were  ye  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none 
of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gains ;  lest  any  should  say 
that  I  had  baptized  in  mine  own  name.  And  I 
baptized  also  the  household  (oikos)  of  Stephanas; 
besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other. 
For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the, 
Gospel." 


Family    Baptisms.  181 

1.  In  examining  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  jail- 
er, in  Part  II.  (see  §  44),  we  had  occasion  to  remark  that 
there  were  two  different  words  in  the  Greek,  which,  in 
our  English  version,  are  indiscriminately  translated  house 
and  household.  The  one,  oikos,  in  its  primary  sense,  sig- 
nifying a  house,  in  our  English  use  of  that  word,  and  in 
its  secondary  sense,  meaning  a  family,  excluding  servants 
and  attendants.  The  other,  oikia,  in  its  primary  sense 
corresponding,  very  nearly,  to  our  English  ^wordi  premises, 
and,  in  its  secondary  sense,  meaning  a  family,  including 
servants  and  attendants.  The  first-mentioned  of  these 
words,  (oikos)  is  the  word  used  to  designate  those  who 
were  baptized  with  Lydia,  the  jailer,  and  Stephanas. 

Such  is  the  common  use  of  the  word  oikos ;  it  is  never 
used  in  a  more  extended  sense,  but  sometimes  in  the  more 
restricted  sense  of  children,  i.  e.,  the  family,  excluding  the 
parents.  "  And  Dathan  and  Abiram  came  out  and  stood 
in  the  door  of  their  tents,  and  their  wives,  and  their  sons, 
and  their  little  children.  And  the  earth  opened  her  mouth 
and  swallowed  them  up,  and  their  houses  (oikos),  and  all 
the  men  that  appertained  unto  Korah,  and  all  their 
goods."  (Numb.  xvi.  27,  42.)  ''Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
Behold,  I  will  raise  up  evil  against  thee  (David)  out  of 
thine  own  house  "  (oikos).  (2  Sam.  xii.  11.)  A  threaten- 
ing fulfilled  in  the  rebellion  of  David's  son  Absalom. 
'•'  One  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house  (oikos),  having  his 
children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity."  (1  Tim.  iii.  4.) 
Such  is  the  word  used  by  the  sacred  writers  in  recording 
the  family  baptisms,  which  accompanied  the  baptism  of 
Lydia,  the  jailer,  and  Stephanas. 

2.  In  the  words  of  Dr.  N.  L.  Rice,  "  "We  do  not  under- 
take to  prove  that  there  were  infants  in  these  families. 
We  simply  call  attention  to  the  remarkable  fact,  that  the 
inspired  historian  mentions  the  conversion  of  the  head  of 
the  family,  and  says  nothing  of  the  conversion  of  the 
family,  but  does  say  they  were  baptized.  If  he  was  a 
Pedo-Baptist,  and  if  the  infants  of  those  families  were 
baptized,  he  wrote  just  as  he  might  have  been  expected  to 
write.  The  fact  is  truly  remarkable,  that  amongst  anti- 
Pedo-Baptists  we  find  no  such  records  of  the  baptism  of 


1 82  Tlie  Doctrine  of  Bapthms. 

families.  Some  years  ago,  I  took  occasion  to  present  to  the 
consideration  of  some  Baptist  editors  this  singular  discre- 
pancy between  the  manner  of  recording  baptisms  adopt- 
ed by  Luke  and  that  adopted  by  Baptists,  and  called  on 
them  to  produce  among  their  accounts  of  baptisms  a  re- 
cord like  that  in  the  case  of  Lydia.  They  succeeded  in 
finding  a  few  baptisms  of  whole  families,  but  they  had 
been  so  unfortunate  as  to  mention  the  conversion  of  the 
members  of  the  families,  as  well  as  their  baptism.  They, 
therefore,  failed  to  find  any  record  like  that  of  Luke.  One 
thing  is  certain,  we  write  as  Luke  wrote,  and  our  anti- 
Pedo-Baptist  friends  do  not.  Would  it  not  be  truly  won- 
derful, should  it  turn  out  to  be  true,  that  those  who  write 
like  Luke,  do  not  act  like  him ;  whilst  those  who  do  not 
write  like  him  are  the  very  persons  who  do  act  like 
him?" 

"  But,"  says  Dr.  Carson,  in  reply  to  this  argument, 
"  there  are  not  now  any  examples  of  the  abundant  success 
that  the  Gospel  had  in  the  Apostles'  days.  We  do  not 
find  that  men  believe  by  households  more  than  they  are 
baptized  by  households.  I  suppose  that  the  Baptist  mis- 
sionaries have  a  baptized  household  as  often  as  they  have 
a  believing  household."  Just  so.  But  the  Apostles  had 
household  baptism,  in  cases  where,  so  far  as  the  record 
shows,  there  were  no  •  believing  households.  This,  pre- 
cisely, is  the  difference  between  the  Apostles  and  the  Bap- 
tists. The  latter,  it  is  true,  have  baptized  families ;  but 
then,  in  giving  an  account  of  these  baptisms,  they  always 
mention  the  faith,  not  only  of  the  head  of  the  family,  but 
of  all  the  members.  The  Apostles  baptized  families :  and 
in  their  account  of  them  they  mention  the  faith  of  the 
.heads,  but  not  of  the  members.  Dr.  Carson  entirely  fails 
to  account  for  this  difierence.  If  the  Apostles  were  Pedo- 
Baptists,  all  is  plain ;  if  not,  the  fact  that  they  wrote  so 
little  like  Baptists,  and  so  much  like  Pedo-Baptists,  is  un- 
accountable." ^ 

3.  The  number  of  these  records  of  family  baptisms  is 
sometimes  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  inconsiderable,  when 

Dr.  N.  L.  Rice  on  Baptism,  pp.  245,  256. 


Family   Baptisms.  183 

compared  with  the  whole  number  of  baptisms  recorded  in 
the  Word  of  God.  And  tlie  question  is  asked,  Why  is  it,  if 
family  baptism  was  practised  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  like 
family  circumcision  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation, 
that  we  have  so  few  recorded  instances  of  it  in  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures  ?  To  this  we  reply — The  number 
of  such  records  (when  the  matter  is  fairly  examined),  docs 
not  appear  inconsiderable.  So  lar  from  it — in  every  in- 
stance in  which  we  have  a  right  to  expect  such  a  record, 
on  the  supposition  that  the  Apostles  were  Pedo-Baptists 
in  practice,  in  every  instance  in  which,  at  the  present  day, 
and  under  a  Presbyterian  ministry,  there  would  be  occa- 
sion to  make  such  a  record,  we  find  a  record  of  a  family 
baptism  in  the  Word  of  God. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  only  book  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which  we  have  any  particular  narrative  of 
Christian  baptisms,  we  have  nine  records  of  baptisms,  less 
or  more,  particularly  given  us.  Now  let  the  reader 
notice :  1.  Two  of  these  are  records  of  the  baptism  of 
persons  having  no  children,  no  family  (oikos)  to  be  bap- 
tized, viz. :  The  Ethiopian  eunuch,  and  Paul.  (See  1  Cor. 
vii.  7.)  2.  Five  are  records  of  the  baptism  of  large  num- 
bers at  the  same  time,  and  on  the  spot  where  they  have 
been  hopefully  converted,  under  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  viz. :  The  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
— the  people  of  Samaria,  including  Simon  Magus — the 
disciples  of  John  at  Ephesus — the  "  many  Corinthians," 
including  Stephanas — and  Cornelius  and  those  gathered  in 
his  house  to  hear  Peter.  In  such  cases  as  these,  at  the 
present  day,  and  under  a  Pedo-Baptist  ministry,  there 
would  be  no  family  baptisms  at  the  time  (men  do  not  carry 
their  infant  children  into  crowded  assemblies  with  them), 
although  there  would  be  afterwards.  And  this  is  just 
what  we  find  to  have  been  the  fact,  in  one  of  these  five 
cases,  viz. :  The  baptism  of  the  "  many  Corinthians."  By 
comparing  Acts  xviii.  8,  with  1  Cor.  i.  16,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  household  of  Stephanas  was  baptized  by  Paul,  in 
all  probability  on  a  different  occasion,  and  shortly  after 
Stephanas  himself,  with  the  "  many "  other  converted 
Jews,  had  been  baptized  in  the  synagogue.     3.  The  re- 


184  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

maining  two,  viz.,  the  baptism  of  Lydia  and  of  the  jailer, 
are  distinctly  recorded  as  family  baptisms. 


SUMMING   UP — CONCLUSION. 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  of  Scripture, 
thought,  either  by  Baptists  or  Pedo-Baptists,  to  throw 
light  upon  the  question  respecting  the  proper  subjects  of 
baptis7n.  Let  us  bring  together  the  results  of  this  ex- 
amination. 

First  In  tracing  back  the  history  of  the  Church,  as 
given  us  in  the  Word  of  God,  we  find  infant-members  in- 
cluded in  that  Church,  even  before  the  days  of  Abraham ; 
each  pious,  family  constituting  a  little  Church,  of  which  the 
father  was  the  ofiiciating  priest,  and  all  the  children  mem- 
bers. AVhen  God  gave  his  Church  her  formal  charter,  in 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  this  right  of  infant  member- 
ship was  expressly  and  solemnly  established  ;  and  this, 
without  any  intimation  that  it  should  ever  cease.  §  50. 

Second.  The  visible  Church  of  God  has  ever  been 
essentially  one  and  the  same ;  has  had  the  same  charter — 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham;  has  possessed  the  same 
character — a  school  of  Christ; — ihe^r si  Christian  Church 
ever  existing  upon  earth  being  simply  the  Old  Testament 
Church,  purged  of  the  Apostasy,  as  is  evident  from  the 
history  of  that  Church,  as  it  is  given  us  in  the  Acts,  and 
the  inspired  representations  contained  in  the  Epistles, 
§§48,49,  50,51,52. 

Third.  Of  this  right-  of  infant  membership,  thus  ex- 
isting as  far  back  as  we  can  trace  the  history  of  the 
Church,  and  expressly  and  solemnly  established  in  the  one 
only  written  charter,  ever  given  of  God  to  the  Church, 
the  Scriptures  contain  no  repeal.  Baptist  writers  have 
attempted  to  show  a  repeal  by  implication. 

1.  In  Christ's  commission  to  his  Church,  recorded  in 
Mark  xvi.  16.  This  commission,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
simply  the  foreign  missionary  commission  of  the  Church, 
and  correctly  interpreted,  gives  no  countenance  to  the 
idea  of  any  repeal  of  infant-membership:  nor  can  it  be 
made  to  countenance  Baptist  views,  without   making   it 


Summing  up — Coiidutsion.  185 

teach  infant-damnation,  and  infant-damnation  for  lack  of 
baptism — doctrines  which  the  Baptist  will  be  as  unwilling 
to  admit  as  we.     §46. 

2.  In  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  teach  the  spiritual 
import  of  baptism.  The  spiritual  import  of  circumcision, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  the  same  with  that  of  baptism,  "  the 
circumcision  of  Christ."  The  same  reasoning,  then,  which 
would  give  us  hence,  a  repeal  of  infant-membership  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  would  carry  back  that  repeal  to  the 
days  of  Abraham;  the  same  argument  which  will  prohibit 
infant  baptism  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  will  just 
as  strongly  prohibit  infant  circumcision  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation.  The  same  in  their  spiritual  im- 
port, the  two,  in  so  far  as  all  such  reasoning  is  concerned, 
must  stand  or  fall  together.  §47. 

Fourth.  The  Lord  Jesus,  the  one  head  of  the  Church, 
recognizes  infant  membership  in  the  Church  of  God,  as 
existing  in  his  day,  and  toward  the  close  of  his  public 
ministry ;  and  this,  not  only  without  any  intimation  that 
it  was  shortly  to  cease,  but  in  such  a  way  as  clearly  to 
imply  its  continuance.  §53. 

Fifth.  The  Lord  Jesus,  in  renewing  Peter's  apostolic  com- 
mission, does  it  in  terms  which  could  not  but  have  recalled 
to  Peter's  mind  the  rebuke  he  had  received  for  "  forbid- 
ding little  children  "  to  be  brought  to  Christ ;  and  which 
seem  utterly  inexplicable  upon  the  supposition  that  child- 
ren are  now,  for  the  first  time,  to  be  thrown  beyond  the 
range  of  the  Church's  pastoral  care.  §54. 

Sixth.  Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  for  the  first 
time  Ch-ristian  baptism  was  preftched  among  men,  preached 
it  in  the  very  terms  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham  ;  a 
covenant  in  which  the  right  of  infant  membership  is  ex- 
pressly acknowledged  and  established.  §55. 

Seventh.  The  first  Christian  Church  ever  existing  upon 
earth,  was  constituted  of  members  received  into  the 
Church  in  infancy,  and  by  circumcision — was,  in  fact,  but 
the  Old  Testameut  Church  (a  Church  in  which  the  right 
of  infant  membership  has  never  been  questioned)  purged 
— the  apostasy  cut  off,  the  election  remaining.  If  then  I, 
an  adult,  having  a  standing  in  the  Church  of  God,  in  virtue 


186  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

of  my  infant  membership,  this  much  is  certain;  my  stand- 
ing is  just  such  as  the  "hundred  and  twenty" — including 
the  Apostle,  excepting  Paul — occupied  to  the  day  of  their 
death.  Does  any  Baptist  object  to  my  Church  standing 
— you  were  not  baptized  when  you  believed  in  Jesus — 
my  answer  is,  Neither  were  the  Apostles.  It  is  enough 
for  me  that  I  came  into  the  Church,  and  now  stand  in 
the  Church  as  they  did.  §  52. 

Eighth.  Children  are  expressly  spoken  of  as  Church 
memJbers,  in  the  New  Testament ;  in  defining  the  qualifi- 
cations of  a  Bishop  (§  59) ;  in  deciding  a  question  about 
the  continuance  of  a  mjrrage  relation  between  a  believ- 
ing husband  or  wife  and  an  unbelieving  partner  (§60); 
and  in  two  of  Paul's  epistles  (and  these  let  it  be  remarked, 
the  only  two  in  which  he  addresses  himself  to  particular 
classes  of  Church  members),  he  addresses  himself  specifi- 
cally to  children  as  one  of  these  classes  (§  58).  That 
under  this  our  Christian  dispensation,  baptism  is  the  di- 
vinely-appointed rite  of  initiation  into  the  Church,  just  as 
circumcision  was  under  a  former  dispensation,  all  are 
agreed.  Infant  membership,  then,  infers  infant  baptism; 
the  two  stand  or  fall  together. 

Ninth.  We  have  express  records  of  family  baptism  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  these  records  made  in  just  such 
terms  as  Pedo-Baptists  are  accustomed  to  make  their  re- 
cords at  the  present  day.  And  the  number  of  these  re- 
cords is  not  inconsiderable.  So  far  from  it,  in  every  in- 
stance in  which  a  Christian  baptism  is  recorded,  and  not 
recorded  as  a  family  baptism,  the  Scriptures  themselves 
give  us  a  reason  why  it  wa's  not  a  family  baptism. 

CONCLUSION. 

That  infant  membership  in  the  Church  was  established 
by  God,  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  no  one  questions.  That 
it  has  ever  been  repealed,  the  Scriptures  contain  not  one 
particle  of  proof;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  full  of  evidence,  and  this  of  various  kinds,  that 
this  right  continues  as  of  old. 

The  two  grand  characteristic  truths  of  Christianity  are 


Summing  up — Conclusion.  187 

— Atojument  and  Regeneration.  And  these  two  truths 
have  been  presented  to  the  faith  of  the  Church,  not  only 
on  the  written  page  of  revelation  but  by  symbol  also, 
under  every  dispensation. 

The  great  truth  of  Atonevient,  once  symbolized  in 
bloody  sacrifices  before  Christ's  death,  under  this  our 
better  dispensation,  is  set  forth  in  the  bread  and  wine  in 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  other  great  truth  of  Regeneration,  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation  symbolized  in  all  the  purifying 
rites  appointed  of  Grod,  but  especially  in  circumcision,  a 
rite  most  appropriate  whilst  the  hope  of  the  world's  regene- 
ration rested  upon  the  coming  of  "  a  blessed  and  blessed- 
making  seed,"^  is  now,  that  the  promised  seed  has  come, 
and  prepared  the  way  for  the  coming  of  the  Comforter," 
the  abundant  outpouring  of  the  regenerating,  sanctifying 
Spirit  of  God  as  appropriately  set  forth  in  water  baptism. 

In  its  essential  character,  the  visible  Church  of  God  has 
ever  been  the  depository  of  "  the  oracles  of  God  "  (Eom. 
iii.  2),  the  school  of  Christ,  in  which'  disciples  are  to  be 
taught  "all  things  whatsoever  he  has  commanded  "  (Matt, 
xxviii.  20).  The  end  in  view,  in  all  this,  is  that  the  disci- 
ple may  be  sanctified  through   the  truth ;  and  hence  the 

'  "  The  general  purport  of  the  covenant"  (i.  e.,  God's  covenant  with 
Abraham)  "  was,  tnat  from  Abraham,  as  an  individual,  there  was  to  be 
generated  a  seed  of  blessing,  in  which  all  real  blessing  was  to  centre, 
and  from  which  it  was  to  now  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  There  could 
not,  therefore,  be  a  more  appropriate  sign  of  the  covenant  than  such  a 
rite  as  circumcision — so  distinctly  connected  with  the  generation  of  off- 
spring, and  so  distinctly  marking  the  necessary  purification  of  nature — 
the  removal  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh — that  the  offspring  might  be  such 
as  really  to  constitute  a  seed  of  blessing.  It  is  through  ordinary  gene- 
ration that  the  corruption  incident  to  the  fall  is  propagated  ;  and  hence, 
under  the  law,  which  contained  a  regular  system  of  symbolic  teaching, 
there  were  so  many  occasions  of  defilement  traced  to  this  source,  and  so 
many  means  of  purification  appointed  for  them.  Nov;,  therefore,  when 
God  was  establishing  a  covenant,  the  great  object  of  which  was  to  re- 
verse the  propagation  of  evil,  to  secure  for  the  world  a  blessed  and  a 
blessed-maKing  seed,  he  affixed  to  it  this  symbolic  rite,  to  show  that  the 
end  was  to  be  reached,  not  as  the  result  of  nature's  ordinary  productive- 
ness, but  of  nature  purged  from  its  uncleanness — nature  raised  above 
itself,  in  league  with  the  grace  of  God,  and  bearing  on  it  the  distinctive 
impress  of  his  character  and  working." — Fairbairns  Typology  of  Scrip- 
ture, vol.  I,  pp.  321,  322. 


188  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

initiatory  rite  of  the  Church  has  ever  been  a  symbol  of  re- 
generation. Under  this  our  Christian  dispensation,  the 
child  is  born  as  much  a  sinner,  and  as  ignorant  a  sinner, 
as  under  the  old ;  and  therefore,  needing  to  be  entered  a 
disciple  at  as  early  an  age  now  as  then.  And  until  it  can 
be  shown  that  God  has  changed  the  character  of  his 
Church,  or  has  forbidden  us  to  bring  our  children  to  Jesus, 
the  great  Prophet,  Teacher  of  our  profession  (and  the 
Scriptures  give  no  countenance  to  any  stich  ideas),  we 
claim  the  right  of  Church  membership,  secured  by  charter 
in  Abraham's  day  and  never  repealed,  to  enter  our  little 
ones  disciples  in  Christ's  school. 

To  him  who  would  forbid  the  Christian  parent  thus  to 
do,  we  commend  the  careful  study  of  Christ's  rebuke,  ad- 
ministered to  his  disciples,  "Suifer  the  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God."  §53. 


PART   IV. 
BAPTISMAL   REGENERATION. 


BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION. 


CHAPTER   I. 


RITES   AND   CEREMONIES   OF    ROMISH    BAPTISM. 

§  62.  Romish  Baptism ;  its  Rites  and  Ceremonies. 

"  All  the  ceremonies  and  prayers  which  the  Church  uses 
"  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  are  to  be  reduced  to 
"  three  heads.  The  first  comprehends  such  as  are  observed 
"  before  coming  to  the  baptismal  font — the  second,  such  as 
"  are  used  at  the  font — the  third,  those  that  immediately 
"  follow  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament. 

"  In  the  first  place,  then,  the  water  to  be  used  in  bap- 
"  tism  should  be  previously  prepared ;  the  baptismal  water 
"  is  consecrated  with  the  oil  of  mystic  unction ;  and  this 
"  cannot  be  done  at  all  times,  but  according  to  ancient 
"  usage,  on  the  vigils  of  certain  festivals,  which  are  justly 
"  deemed  the  greatest  and  most  holy  solemnities  in  the 
"  year,  and  on  which  alone,  except  in  cases  of  necessity,  it 
"was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  Church  to  administer 
"  baptism.  But  although  the  Church,  on  account  of  the 
"  dangers  to  which  life  is  continually  exposed,  has  deemed 
"  it  expedient  to  change  her  discipline  in  this  respect,  she 
"  still  observes  with  the  greatest  solemnity  the  festivals  of 

191 


192  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

"  Easter  and  Pentecost,  on  whicli  the  baptismal  water  is 
"to  be  consecrated." 

"  After  the  consecration  of  the  water,  the  other  cere- 
"  monies  that  precede  baptism,  are  next  to  be  explained. 
"  The  person  to  be  baptized  is  brought  or  conducted  to 
"  the  door  of  the  Church,  and  is  forbidden  to  enter,  as  un- 
"  worthy  to  be  admitted  into  the  house  of  God,  until  he 
"  has  cast  off  the  yoke  of  the  most  degrading  servitude  of 
"  Satan,  devoted  himself  unreservedly  to  Christ,  and 
"pledged  his  fidelity  to  the  just  sovereignty  of  the  Lord 
"Jesus." 

"  The  priest  then  asks  what  he  demands  of  the  Church 
"  of  God ;  and  having  received  the  answer,  he  first  in- 
"  structs  him  catechetically,  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
"  tian  faith,  of  which  a  profession  is  to  be  made  in  bap- 
"  tism.  This  practice  of  thus  communicating  instruction 
"originated,  no  doubt,  in  the  precept  of  our  Lord,  ad- 
"  dressed  to  his  Apostles :  '  Go  ye  into  the  whole  world, 
"  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
"  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching 
"  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
"manded  you; '  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20,)  words  from  which 
"  we  may  learn  that  baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  un- 
"  til  at  least  the  principal  truths  of  religion  are  explained. 
"  But  as  the  catechetical  form  consists  of  questions  and 
"  answers ;  if  the  person  to  be  instructed  be  an  adult,  he 
"  himself  answers  the  interrogatories ;  if  an  infant,  the 
"  sponsors  answer  according  to  the  prescribed  form,  and 
"  enter  into  a  solemn  engagement  for  the  child." 

"  The  exorcism  comes  next  in  order  :  it  consists  of  words 
"  of  sacred  and  religious  import,  and  of  prayers ;  and  is 
"  used  to  expel  the  devil,  to  weaken  and  crush  his  power. 
"  To  the  exorcism  are  added  other  ceremonies,  each  of 
"  which,  being  mystical,  has  its  clear  and  proper  significa- 
"  tion.  When,  for  instance,  salt  is  put  into  the  mouth  of 
"  the  person  to  be  baptized,  it  evidently  imports,  that  by 
"  the  doctrines  of  faith,  and  by  the  gift  of  grace,  he  shall 
"  be  delivered  from  the  corruption  of  sin,  shall  experience 
"  a  relish  for  good  works,  and  shall  be  nurtured  with  the 
"food    of    divine   wisdom.      Again,   his   forehead,   eyes, 


RomisJb  Baptism;  its  Rites  and  Ceremonies.    193 

"  breast,  shoulders,  ears,  are  signed  with  the  sign  of  the 
"  cross,  to  declare,  that  by  the  mystery  of  baptism,  the 
"  senses  of  the  person  baptized  are  opened  and  strength- 
"  ened,  to  enable  him  to  receive  God,  and  to  understand 
"  and  observe  his  commandments.  His  nostrils  and  ears 
"  are  next  touched  with  spittle,  and  he  is  then  immediately 
"  admitted  to  the  baptismal  font :  by  this  ceremony  we 
"  understand  that,  as  sight  was  given  to  the  blind  man, 
"  mentioned  in  the  Gospel,  whom  the  Lord,  having  spread 
"  clay  on  his  eyes,  commanded  to  wash  them  in  the  waters 
"  of  Siloe ;  so  by  the  efficacy  of  holy  baptism,  a  light  is 
"  let  in  on  the  mind,  which  enables  it  to  discern  heavenly 
"  truth." 

"  After  the  performance  of  these  ceremonies,  the  person 
"  to  be  baptized  approaches  the  baptismal  font,  at  which 
"  are  performed  other  rites  and  ceremonies,  which  present 
"  a  summary  of  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  Christian 
"  religion.  In  three  distinct  interrogatories,  he  is  formally 
"  asked  by  the  minister  of  religion, — Dost  thou  renounce 
"  Satan  ? — and  all  his  works  ? — and  all  his  pomps  ? — to 
"  each  of  which  he,  or  the  sponsor  in  his  name,  replies  in 
"the  affirmative.  Whoever,  then,  purposes  to  enlist  un- 
"  der  the  standard  of  Christ,  must,  first  of  all,  enter  into 
"  a  sacred  and  solemn  engagement  to  renounce  the  devil 
"  and  the  world,  and,  as  his  worst  enemies,  to  hold  theih 
"  in  utter  detestation." 

"  He  is  next  anointed  with  the  oil  of  catechumens  on 
"  the  breast  and  between  the  shoulders — on  the  breast, 
"  that  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  he  may  lay  aside 
"  error  and  ignorance,  and  receive  the  true  faith ;  for  '  the 
"just  man  liveth  by  faith ' — on  the  shoulders,  that  by  the 
"  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  may  be  enabled  to  shake  ofF 
"  negligence  and  torpor,  and  engage  actively  in  the  per- 
"  formance  of  good  works ;  for  '  faith  without  works  is 
"dead.'" 

"  Next,  standing  at  the  baptismal  font,  he  is  interro- 
"  gated  by  the  minister  of  religion  in  these  words  :  Dost 
"  thou  believe  in  God,  the  Father  Almighty  ?  to  which  is 
"  answered :  I  believe ;  a  like  inteiTogatory  is  proposed 
"  with  regard  to  the  other  articles  of  the  creed,  succes- 
9 


194  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

"  sively ;  and  tlius  is  made  a  solemn  profession  of  faith. 
"  These  two  engagements,  the  renunciation  of  Satan  and 
"  all  his  works  and  pomps,  and  the  belief  of  all  the  articles 
"  of  the  creed,  including  as  they  do,  both  faith  and  prac- 
"  tice,  constitute,  it  is  clear,  the  whole  force  and  discipline 
"  of  the  law  of  Christ." 

"  When  baptism  is  now  about  to  be  administered,  the 
"  priest  asks  him  if  he  will  be  baptized ;  to  which  an  answer 
"  in  the  affirmative  being  given  by  him,  or,  if  an  infant,  by 
"  the  sponsor,  the  priest  performs  the  ablution,  in  the 
"  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
"  Ghost.  As  man,  by  yielding  the  assent  of  his  will  to 
"  the  wicked  suggestions  of  Satan,  fell  under  a  just  sen- 
"  fence  of  condemnation  ;  so  God  will  have  none  enrolled 
"  in  the  number  of  his  soldiers,  but  those  whose  service  is 
"  voluntary ;  that  by  a  willing  obedience  to  his  commands 
"  they  may  obtain  eternal  salvation." 

"  After  the  person  has  been  baptized,  the  priest  anoints 
"  with  chrism  the  crown  of  his  head,  thus  giving  him  to 
"  understand,  that  from  the  moment  of  his  baptism,  he  is 
"  united  as  a  member  to  Christ,  his  head,  and  ingrafted 
"  on  his  body ;  and  that  he  is,  therefore,  called  a  Chris- 
"  tian,  from  Christ,  as  Christ  is  so  called  from  Chrism. 
"  "What  the  Chrism  signifies,  the  prayers  offered  by  the 
".priest,  as  St.  Ambrose  observes,  sufficiently  explain." 

"  On  the  person  baptized  the  priest  then  puts  a  white 
"  garment,  saying,  receive  this  white  garment,  which 
"  may  est  thou  carry  unstained  before  the  judgment-seat  of 
"  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  that  thou  mayest  have  eternal 
"  life.  Amen.  Instead  of  a  white  garment,  infants,  be- 
"cause  not  formally  dressed,  receive  a  white  kerchief, 
"  accompanied  with  the  same  words.  According  to  the 
"  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Fathers  this  symbol  signifies  the 
"  glory  of  the  resurrection  to  which  we  are  born  by  bap- 
"  tism,  thd  brightness  and  beauty  with  which  the  soul, 
"  when  purified  from  the  stains  of  sin,  is  invested,  and  the 
"  innocence  and  integrity  which  the  person  who  has  re- 
"  ceived  baptism,  should  preserve  through  life." 

"  To  signify  that  faith  received  in  baptism,  and  inflamed 
"  by  charity,  is  to  be  fed  and  augmented  by  the  exercise 


Hoynish  Baptism;  its  Rites  and  Ceremonies.    195 

"  of  good  works,  a  burning  light  is  next  put  into  his 
"hands." 

"  Finally,  a  name  is  given,  which  should  be  taken  from 
"  some  person,  whose  eminent  sanctity  has  given  him  a 
"  place  in  the  catalogue  of  the  saints ;  this  similarity  of 
"  name  will  stimulate  to  the  imitation  of  his  virtues  and 
*'  the  attainment  of  his  holiness  ;  and  we  should  hope  and 
"  pray  that  he  who  is  the  model  of  our  imitation,  may 
"  also,  by  his  advocacy,  become  the  guardian  of  our  safety 
"  and  salvation."  {Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  "pp. 
133-136.) 

"To  make  these  (rites  and  ceremonies)  understood, 
"  therefore,  and  to  impress  the  minds  of  the  faithful  with 
"  a  conviction  that  although  not  of  absolute  necessity,  they 
"  are  of  very  great  importance,  and  challenge  great  ven- 
"  eration,  are  matters  which  solicit  the  zeal  and  industry 
"  of  the  pastor.  This,  the  authority  of  those  by  whom 
"  they  were  instituted,  who  were,  no  doubt,  the  Apostles, 
"  and  also  the  object  of  their  institution,  sufficiently  prove. 
"  That  ceremonies  contribute  to  the  more  religious  and 
"  holy  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  serve  to  exhibit 
"  to  the  eyes  of  the  beholder  a  lively  picture  of  the  exalted 
"  and  inestimable  gifts  which  they  contain,  and  impress 
"  on  the  minds  of  the  faithful  a  deeper  sense  of  the  bound- 
"  less  beneficence  of  God,  are  truths  as  obvious  as  they  are 
"  unquestionable.  .  .  .  Baptism  may  be  administered  by 
"  immersion,  infusion,  or  aspersion ;  and  administered  in 
"either  of  these  forms  is  equally  valid."  (Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  pp.  117,  133.) 

From  the  above-cited  extracts  from  the  Catechism  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  agrees  with  the  great  body  of  Protestants — (1)  In 
teaching  infant  baptism.  (2)  In  declaring  that  the  mode  of 
baptism,  whether  by  immersion,  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  is 
a  matter  of  indifference, — baptism  in  any  of  these  ways 
being  equally  valid,  and — (3)  In  making  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism to  consist,  essentially  in  the  application  of  water  to 
the  person  of  the  baptized.  It  differs  from  them,  in  add- 
ing to,  what  it  confesses  to  be,  the  simple  rite  as  instituted 
bv  Christ,  numerous   "  rites  and  ceremonies,"  which  it 


196  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

teaclies  "  are  of  great  importance,"  viz. :  tlie  consecration 
of  the  water,  the  exorcism,  the  putting  of  salt  in  the 
mouth,  the  signing  with  the  cross,  the  touching  with  spit- 
tle, anointing  with  the  oil  of  catechumens,  anointing 
with  the  oil  of  chrism,  the  clothing  in  a  white  garment, 
and  the  placing  in  the  hand  of  the  baptized  a  burning  light. 

Of  these  rites  and  ceremonies,  the  Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  affirms  that  "  they  were  instituted,  no 
doubt,  by  the  Apostles."  Archbishop  Kenrick  modifies 
this  statement  very  materially.  "  All  these  rites — writes 
he — which  are  used  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  are 
derived  from  venerable  antiquity,  and  are  full  of  significa- 
tion. Some  of  them,  such  as  the  interrogations,  exor- 
cisms, imposition  of  hands,  signing  with  the  cross,  and 
unctions,  may,  without  temerity,  be  considered  of  Apos- 
tolic origin.  To  censure  them,  would  be  to  condemn  the 
whole  Christian  Church  in  the  earliest  and  brightest  ages, 
and,  indirectly  at  least,  the  Apostles  themselves."  [Ken- 
rick on  Baptism,  p.  213).  This  modified  statement  of  the 
Archbishop  agrees  far  better  with  the  results  of  historical 
investigation  than  that  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council 
of  Trent. 

Romanists  do  not  pretend  that  they  have  direct  Scrip- 
ture precept  for  any  of  these  rites  and  ceremonies ;  and 
that  they  were  not  practiced  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
is,  we  think,  abundantly  proved  by  the  fact  that  there  is 
no  mention  of  them,  nor  any  reference  to  them,  even  in 
the  latest  books  of  the  Xew  Testament ;  and  some  of  these 
books  were  written  but  a  few  years  before  the  death  of 
the  last  of  the  Apostles. 

In  his  commentary  on  1  Cor.  xi.  21,  where  we  have  a 
record  of  the  abuses  which  obtained  in  the  administration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  Church  of  Corinth  in  those 
"  earliest  and  brightest  ages,"  as  the  Archbishop  calls 
them ;  Dr.  Hodge  has  this  note :  "  It  is  wonderful,  and 
well  nigh  portentous,  says  Calvin,  that  Satan  could  have 
accomplished  so  much  in  so  short  a  time.  "We  may  learn 
from  this  example,  what  is  the  worth  of  mere  antiquity ; 
that  is,  what  authority  is  due  to  custom  unsustained  by 
the  word  of  God.     Yet  this  is  the  firmest  foundation  of 


lioviis'h  Baptism;  its  Rites  and  Ceremonies.    197 

Popery ;  it  is  ancient ;  it  was  done  of  old,  therefore  it  has 
divine  authority  !  If,  within  twenty  years  of  its  institu- 
tion, the  Corinthians  turned  the  Lord's  Supper  into  a  dis- 
orderly feast,  although  the  apostles  were  then  alive,  we 
need  not  wonder  at  the  speedy  corruption  of  the  Church 
after  their  death." 

"  The  Sacraments  are  .  .  .  immediately  instituted  hy 
God!'  {Con.  of  Faith,  eh.  xxvii.  sec.  1.)  To  this,  which  is 
the  common  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Church,  the  deliv- 
erance of  the  Council  of  Trent  agrees — "  If  any  one  saith, 
that  the  Sacraments  of  the  New  Law  were  not  all  insti- 
tuted by  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  ...  let  him  be  anath- 
ema." (Session  Seventh,  Canon  1.) 

A  second  point  in  which  Protestants  and  Eomanists 
agree  is,  that  the  Sacraments  are  symbolic  representations 
of  divine  truth : — They  are  as  truly  a  part  of  God's  rev- 
elation as  the  Holy  Scriptures  are.  Hence  the  obligation 
of  the  rule  in  this  case  which  Paul  set  forth  in  his  words, 
and  enforced  by  his  example — "  I  have  received  of  the 
Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you."  (1  Cor,  xi. 
23.)  To  observe  these  sacraments,  then,  in  all  essential, 
in  all  important  particulars,  just  as  the  Lord  has  delivered 
them  unto  us,  is  plainly  our  duty.  We  may  grant,  for 
argument's  sake,  that  the  truths  symbolized  in  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  added  by  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the  sim- 
ple rite  of  water  baptism  are  all  truths ;  and  truths 
which  it  is  right  and  proper  should  be  taught  at  other 
times  and  in  other  ways ;  but  we  deny  emphatically,  that 
the  Church  has  any  right  to  make  the  teaching  of  them 
by  symbol  a  part  of  the  Sacrament.  They  are  the  inven- 
tion of  men,  good  men  it  may  be ; — they  were  not  "  insti- 
tuted by  Jesus  Christ,"  and  therefore,  cannot  form  a  part 
of  the  Sacrament. 


198  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTER  II. 


BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

§63.  Baptismal  Regeneration   defined.     ?  64.  John  iii.   3-7.    265.  Eph.  v.   25-27. 
§66.  Titus  iii.  5,  6.    §67.  Acts  xxii.  16.    §68.  Acts  ii.  37,38.    §69.  Rom.  v.  12,  14. 

§  63.  Baptismal  Regeneration  defined. 

In  its  decree  concerning  Original  Sin  the  Council  of 
Trent  declares — 

"  3.  If  any  one  asserts  that  the  sin  of  Adam, — which 
"  in  its  origin  is  one,  and  being  transfused  into  all  by  pro- 
"  pagation,  not  by  imitation,  is  to  each  one  as  his  own, — 
"  is  taken  away  either  by  the  powers  of  human  nature,  or 
"  by  any  other  remedy  than  the  merit  of  the  one  medi- 
"  ator,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  (1  Tim.  ii.  5),  who  hath 
"  reconciled  us  to  God  in  his  own  blood,  being  made  unto 
"  us  justice,  sanctification,  and  redemption,  (1  Cor.  i.  30), 
"  or  if  he  denies  that  the  said  merit  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
"  applied,  both  to  adults  and  to  infants,  by  the  sacfament 
"  of  baptism  rightly  administered  in  the  form  of  the 
"  Church ;  let  him  be  anathema. 

"  4.  For  that  which  the  Apostle  has  said.  By  one  man 
"  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  by  sin  death,  and  so 
"  death  passed  upon  all  men,  in  whom  all  have  sinned, 
"  (Rom.  V.  12)  is  not  to  be  understood  otherwise  than  as 
"  the  Catholic  Church,  spread  everywhere,  hath  always 
"  understood  it.  For,  by  reason  of  this  rule  of  faith,  from 
"  a  tradition  of  the  Apostles,  even  infants,  who  could  not 
"  as  yet  commit  any  sin  of  themselves,  are  for  this  cause 
"  truly  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  that  in  them 
"  that  may  be  cleansed  away  by  regeneration,  which  they 
"have  contracted  by  generation.     For  unless  a  man  be 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Dejiiied.  199 

"  born  again  of  water  and  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost,  he  cannot 
"  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  (John  iii.  5). 

"5.  If  any  one  denies,  that,  by  the  grace  of  our  Lord 
"  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  conferred  in  baptism,  the  guilt  of 
'"  original  sin  is  remitted ;  or  even  asserts  that  the  whole 
""  of  that  which  has  the  true  and  proper  nature  of  sin  is 
"  not  taken  away ;  but  says  that  it  is  only  rased,  or  not 
"  imputed  ;  let  him  be  anathema.  For  in  those  who  are 
"  born  again,  there  is  nothing  that  God  hates ;  because, 
"  There  is  no  condemnation  to  those  who  are  truly  buried 
"  together  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death ;  (Eom.  viii.  1, 
"  vi.  4)  who  walk  not  according  to  the  flesh,  but  putting  off 
"  the  old  man,  and  putting  on  the  new  who  is  created 
"according  to  God,  (Eph.  iv.  22)  are  made  innocent, 
"  immaculate,  pure,  harmless,  and  beloved  of  God,  heirs 
"  indeed  of  God  but  joint-heirs  with  Christ,  (E,om.  viii. 
"  17)  so  that  there  is  nothing  whatever  to  retard  their  en- 
"  trance  into  heaven.  But  this  holy  synod  confesses  and 
"  is  sensible  that  in  the  baptized  there  remains  concu- 
"  piscence,  or  an  incentive  (to  sin) ;  which,  whereas  it 
"  is  left  for  our  exercise,  cannot  injure  those  who  con- 
"  sent  not,  but  resist  manfully  by  the  grace  of  Jesus 
"  Christ ;  yea,  he  who  shall  have  striven  lawfully  shall  be 
"  crowned  (2  Tim.  ii.  5.)  This  concupiscence,  which  the 
"  Apostle  sometimes  calls  sin,  (Rom.  vi.  12,  vii.  8)  the 
"  Holy  Synod  declares  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  never 
"  understood  it  to  be  called  sin,  as  being  truly  and  pro- 
"  perly  sin  in  those  born  again,  but  because  it  is  of  sin 
"  and  inclines  to  sin.  And  if  any  one  is  of  a  contrary 
"  sentiment,  let  him  be  anathema."    {Session  Fifth.) 

In  its  decree  on  justification  the  Council  declares — 

"  Justification  is  not  remission  of  sins  merely,  but  also 
"  the  sanctification  and  renewal  of  the  inward  man,  through 
"  the  voluntary  reception  of  the  grace,  and  of  the  gifts, 
"  whereby  man  of  unjust  becomes  just,  and  of  an  enemy  a 
"  friend,  that  so  he  may  be  an  heir  according  to  hope  of 
"  life  everlasting." 

"  Of  this  justification  the  causes  are  these :  the  final 
"  cause  is  the  glory  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  life 
"  everlasting :  while  the  efiicient  cause  is  a  merciful  Go(] 


200  The  Doctrine  of  Bcqjtisyns. 

"  who  washes  and  sanctifies  (1  Cor.  vi.  11)  gratuitously, 
"signing,  and  anointing  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  pro- 
"  mTse,  who  is  the  pledge  of  our  inheritance ;  (Eph.  i.  13, 
"  14)  but  the  meritorious  cause  is  his  most  beloved  only- 
"  begotten,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who,  when  we  were 
"  enemies,  for  the  exceeding  charity  wherewith  he  loved 
"  us,  (Eph,  ii.  4)  merited  justification  for  us  by  his  most 
"  holy  passion  on  the  wood  of  the  cross,  and  made  satis- 
"  faction  for  us  unto  God  the  Father ;  the  instrumental 
"  cause  is  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  which  is  the  sacra- 
"  ment  of  faith,  without  which  (faith)  no  man  was  ever 
"justified."  {Session  Sixth,  ch.  vii.) 

"  If  any  one  saith,  that  baptism  is  fi'ee,  that  is,  not 
"  necessary  unto  salvation  :  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council 
of  Trent,  Session  Seventh  ;  Canon  v,  07i  Baptism.) 

According  to  the  above  quoted  deliverances  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  the  Komish  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation is  : — that  "  the  instrumental  cause  of  justifica- 
tion " — meaning  by  justification,  "  not  remission  of  sins 
merely,  but  also  sanctification,  and  renewal  of  the  inward 
jQan," — "  is  the  sacrament  of  baptism ; " — That  "  by  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  conferred  in  bap- 
tism, the  baptized"  are  "made  innocent,  immaculate,  pure, 
harmless  and  beloved  of  God,  heirs  indeed  of  God,  and 
joint-heirs  with  Christ,  so  that  there  is  nothing  whatever 
to  retard  their  entrance  into  heaven  ; "  That  "  infants  are 
baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  that  in  them,  may  be 
cleansed  away  by  regeneration,  which  they  have  con- 
tracted by  generation  ; — and  hence — That  baptism  is  ne- 
cessary to  salvation." 

The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  as  taught  in  the 
Oxford  Tracts,  is  substantially  the  same  with  that  of  the 
Church  of  Eome.  In  the  language  of  those  tracts  :  "The 
relation  of  sonship  to  God  is  imparted  through  baptism, 
and  is  not  imparted  without  it."  .  .  .  "Herein  are  we  jus- 
tified, or  both  accounted  and  made  righteous ;  and  have  a 
new  principle  of  life  imparted  to  us ;  since  having  been 
made  members  of  Christ,  we  have  a  portion  of  his  life." 
.  .  .  "Water,  sanctified  by  our  Lord's  baptism,  is  the 
womb  of  our  new  birth."  ..."  In  baptism  the  old  man  is 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Defined.  201 

laid  aside,  the  new  man  taken ;  ho  entereth  a  sinner,  he 
ariseth  justified."  {Oxford  Tracts,  vol.  ii.  pp.  31,  24,  43, 
47). 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  her  Ofice  for  In- 
fant Baptism,  "  thanks  God  that  it  hath  pleased  him  to 
regenerate  this  infant  with  his  Holy  Spirit,"  and  in  her 
Ofiice  for  Confirmation  declares  that  God  hath  "  vouch- 
safed to  regenerate  this  his  servant  with  Water  and  the 
Holy  Ghost."  In  explanation  of  this  language,  the  late 
Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  in  his  Essay  on  Kegeneration, 
maintained  that  the  word  regeneration  is  properly  used 
in  two  senses.  In  one  it  means  "  a  change  of  state  or  re- 
lation; in  the  other,  a  change  of  nature.  The  first  is 
baptismal,  the  second  is  moral.  The  first,  or  baptismal,  is 
a  new  birth,  since  it  constitutes  us  sons  of  God,  as  the 
Jews  were  made  his  peculiar  people  by  that  covenant,  the 
seal  of  which  was  circumcision.  The  second,  is  a  new 
birth  or  creation  in  a  higher  sense,  being  a  gradual  sanc- 
tifying change  wrought  in  the  moral  character  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  not  necessarily  connected  with  baptism." 
{Hodge's  Outlines  of  Theology,  p.  344.)  This  is  sub- 
stantially the  doctrine  as  it  is  held  by  the  Evangelical,  as 
contradistinguished  from  the  Ritualistic  party,  in  the  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States ;  and  does  not  amount 
to  baptismal  regeneration  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of 
that  term. 

Having  given  the  reader  a  distinct  statement  of  the 
doctrine,  let  us  turn  now  to  an  examination  of  the  Scrip- 
ture proofs  by  which  its  advocates  seek  to  establish  it. 

§G4.  Johnm.  3-7. 

John  iii.  3-7.  "Jesus  answered  apd  said  unto  him.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be  born  again, 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  Nicodemus  saith 
unto  him.  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old  ? 
Can  he  enter  the  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb 
and  be  born  ?  Jesus  answered,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  Water,  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
9* 


202  The  Doctrine  of  BajMsms. 

That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh,  and  that 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit.  Marvel  not 
that  I  said  unto  thee.  Ye  must  be  born  again." 

The  words  especially  dwelt  upon  by  the  advocates  of 
baptismal  regeneration  are — "  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God,"  ver.  5.  And  we  may  add, — This  verse  may 
fairly  be  regarded  as,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  proof-text 
of  the  doctrine.  For  this  reason  it  should  receive  a  care- 
ful examination. 

1.  In  his  words,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  our  Lord  is,  as  was 
frequently  his  wont,  answering  a  question  which  he  saw 
was  in  Nicodemus'  mind ;  the  great  question  in  all  reli- 
gion, "How  shall  man  be  just  with  God?"  (Job  ix.  2.) 
Had  Nicodemus  given  expression  to  the  question,  just  as 
it  lay  in  his  mind,  he  would  have  said,  as  did  another 
"Ruler  in  Israel  " — "Good  Master,  what  good  thing  shall 
I  do,  that  I  may  have  eternal  life?"  (Matt.  xix.  16.) 
Upright  in  his  dealings  with  his  fellow-men,  and  puncti- 
lious in  his  observance  of  the  ceremonial  of  religion  as 
established  by  Moses,  he  lacked  but  little,  in  his  own  esti- 
mation, of  what  God  would  require  as  a  condition  of 
eternal  life ; — a.nd  yet,  like  many  in  every  age  who  have 
sought  salvation  by  "  the  deeds  of  the  law,"  he  is  not 
satisfied  with  his  condition;  his  life  does  not  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  law  so  completely,  that  his  conscience 
suggests  no  doubt  of  his  acceptance  with  God.  Some 
good  thing  there  may  be — probably  is — to  be  done  before 
heaven  is  secure.  And  as  our  Lord,  by  his  miracles,  has 
shown  himself  to  be  "a  teacher  come  from  God,"  like  the 
old  prophets,  he  comes  to  him  for  a  solution  of  his  difli- 
culty. 

2.  Nicodemus'  plan  of  salvation,  by  "  the  deeds  of  the 
law,"  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  Gospel  plan, — that 
which  Christ  came  to  teach ;  and  to  teach  him  this  truth 
in  a  way  that  he  cannot  possibly  misunderstand  him,  our 
Jjord  meets  him  with  the  startling  declaration,  "Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be   born  again,  he 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Defined.  203 

cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God :  "  As  if  he  had  said — 
What  you  need  is,  not  some  "  good  thing "  in  addition 
to  the  many  "  good  things  "  you  ah-eady  have, — your  re- 
ligion is  rotten,  dead  to  the  very  core.  What  you  need, 
and  must  have,  if  you  would  see  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  a 
change  as  radical  and  entire  as  a  being  "  born  again." 
And  when  Nicoderaus,  half  in  cavil,  half  in  misapprehen- 
sion, putting  a  gross,  material  interpretation  upon  his 
words,  asks,  "  Can  a  man  enter  the  second  time  into  his 
mother's  womb,  and  be  born  ?  "  our  Lord  replies,  "That 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born 
of  the  Spirit  is  spirit :  " — as  if  he  had  said,  Even  if  you 
could  enter  a  second  time  into  your  mother's  womb  and 
be  born,  that  would  not  meet  the  difficulty.  Being  born 
a  second  time  by  the  process  of  natural  birth,  you  would 
be  born  as  fatally  estranged  from  God  and  as  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  as  you  were  when  born  the  first  time. 
The  change  you  need  is  a  spiritual  change,  and  must  be 
wrought  by  the  Spirit. 

3.  With  this  additional  declaration  before  him,  Nicode- 
mus  could  not  well  misunderstand  our  Lord's  words  re- 
specting the  nature  of  the  new  birth  declared  to  be  neces- 
sary in  order  to  salvation.  As  a  master  in  Israel,  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  change  of  which  the  hea- 
then were  the  subjects  when  they  became  proselytes  to  the 
Jewish  religion — turned  from  dumb  idols  to  the  worship 
of  the  living  God — as  a  new  birth ;  and  this,  because  the 
change  was  a  radical  one;  a  change  affecting  the  whole 
heart  and  life.  And  so,  when  our  Lord  says  "  Except  a 
man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God  :  I  say  unto  thee,  ye  must  be  born  again," 
he  could  not  well  understand  him  otherwise  than  as  as- 
serting that  he  (Nicodemus),  if  he  would  have  eternal  life, 
must  be  the  subject  of  as  thorough  and  radical  a  change  as 
that  of  which  the  heathen  were  the  subjects  when  they 
became  true  proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion.  Thus  far, 
all  commentatoi's,  Romish  as  well  as  Protestant,  substan- 
tially agree. 

That  by  the  new  birth  here  spoken  of,  our  Lord  meant 
(1)  a  thorough,  radical  change,  and  (2)  that  "  the  efficient 


20-i  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

cause  "  of  this  cliange  is  God ;  God  the  Spirit,  the  Council 
of  Trent  distinctly  affirms.  It  is  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  words  "born  of  water,"  that  the  peculiar  doctrine  of 
the  Romanist  and  Tractarian  appears.  They  assert  that 
these  words  are  equivalent  to  born  of  baptism — of  course 
Christian  baptism  is  meant — and  teach  that  "the  instru- 
mental cause  of  regeneration  is  the  Sacrament  of  Bap- 
tism; "  and  this,  in  such  a'sense,  that  even  in  the  case  of 
new-born  infants,  "  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation  :  " 
That  whilst  the  efficient  agent  in  regeneration  is  the  Spir- 
it, his  operations  in  the  case  are  so  indissolubly  tied  to 
baptism,  that  (1)  They  are  never  put  forth  except  in  con- 
nection with  baptism,  so  that  there  is  no  regeneration 
without  baptism ;  and  (2)  That  unless  the  baptized  per- 
son, in  the  exercise  of  his  free  agency,"  opposes  an  obsta- 
cle "  (and  this  the  infant  cannot  do)  they  always  accompa- 
ny baptism  ;  so  that  in  the  orderly  course  of  things,  to  be 
baptized  is  to  be  regenerated.  According  to  this  view, 
verse  5lh  may  be  fairly  paraphrased. — Jesus  answered, 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  man  be  regene- 
rated by  Christian  baptism,  as  "  the  instrumental  cause  " 
of  that  regeneration,  and  by  the  Spirit,  as  "  the  efficient 
cause  " — and  the  operation  of  the  latter  is  indissolubly 
tied  to  the  former — "  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God." 

In  opposition  to  this  interpretation,  we  take  the  ground 
that  our  Lord,  in  his  words  "  born  of  water,"  is  not  speak- 
ing of  Christian  baptism;  and  we  take  this  ground  for 
several  reasons. 

1.  Christian  baptism  had  not  been  instituted  at  the 
time  of  this  interview  with  Nicodemus,  nor  had  any  in- 
timation been  given  of  our  Lord's  purpose  to  institute 
such  a  rite  in  the  Church.  As  we  learn  from  the  closing 
portion  of  the  chapter,  the  interview  occurred  before  the 
imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  so  some  two,  pro- 
bably nearly  tliree  years  before  the  close  of  our  Lord's 
ministry.  Christian  baptism  was  not  instituted  until  after 
the  resurrection.  The  Old  Testament  Jewish  Church  was 
the  true,  visible  Church  of  God  at  the  time,  and  so  con- 
tinued until  it  consummated  its  apostasy  in  the  crucifixion 


Baptismal  Rcjoieration  Defined. 


205 


of  its  Lord.  John's  baptism,  as  well  as  the  baptism  ad- 
ministered by  Christ's  disciples  —  for  "Jesus  himself 
baptized  not,  but  his  disciples  "  (Jno.  iv.  2)  were  of  essen- 
tially the  same  character,  viz. :  Jewish  rites  of  purification, 
(see  §  29),  and  differed  so  essentially  from  Christian  bap- 
tism, that  Paul,  at  Ephesus,  administered  Christian  baptism 
to  a  number  of  disciples  who  had  already  received  that  of 
John,  (Acts  xix.  1-5)  as  doubtless  did  Peter  and  the  other 
apostles,  on  "  the  day  of  pentecost,"  for  among  the  three 
thousand  who  were  then  "added  to  them,"  there  must 
have  been  many  who  had  previously  been  the  disciples  of 
John.  For  this  reason,  had  our  Lord  by  his  words  "born 
of  water"  meant  Christian  baptism,  Nicodemus  could  not 
possibly  have  understood  him  aright,  and  the  words  spo- 
ken to  remove  perplexity,  could  but  have  increased  that 
perplexity. 

2.  Christ's  words  are  a  personal  address  to  Nicodemus. 
For,  although  his  form  of  address  is  general,  yet  all  agree 
that  he  meant,  and  that  Nicodemus  understood  him  to 
mean — Except  you,  Nicodemus,  be  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  you  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Nicodemus,  be  it  understood,  was  "a  Pharisee  and  ruler 
of  the  Jews," — a  ruler  in  the  Church,  and  not  in  the  State 
— and  had  undoubtedly  received  circumcision  in  his  in- 
fancy. Now,  circumcision  under  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation was  what  baptism  is  under  the  New  ;  and  hence 
baptism  is  called  by  Paul  "  the"  circumcision  of  Christ," 
(Col.  ii.  11)  or  Christian  circumcision.  Whatever  baptism 
accomplished  for  Paul  and  the  saints  of  his  day,  circum- 
cision accomplished  for  Abraham,  and  Moses,  and  David, 
and  Isaiah.  For  this  reason  it  was  that  the  apostles,  with 
the  exception  of  Paul,  never  received  Christian  baptism, 
but  to  the  day  of  their  death,  occupied  a  place  in  the  visi- 
ble Church  of  God  on  the  strength  of  their  circumcision 
in  infancy.  (See  §  52.)  As  the  Jewish  Church  was  the 
true,  visible  Church  of  God  at  the  time,  and  was  recog- 
nized as  such  by  Christ  up  to  "  the  night  in  which  he  was 
betrayed,"  for  Christ  to  have  enjoined  upon  Nicodemus 
Christian  baptism,  would  have  been,  virtually,  to  have 
enjoined  a  second  baptism,  and  a  second    baptism    the 


206  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

Council  of  Trent  condemns  under  the  pain  of  anathema. 
(See  Session  vii.  Canon  ix.)  Had  Nicodemus  held  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  or  circumcisional  regeneration — and 
the  two  must  stand  or  fall  together — and  had  he  under- 
stood our  Lord,  in  his  words  "  6o?'?^  of  water,"  to  enjoin  a 
regeneration  by  baptism,  his  instant  reply  would  have 
been : — I  have  already  been  regenerated,  and  how  can  I 
be  regenerated  a  second  time  ? 

3.  "If  by  'born  of  water'  our  Lord  meant  regenerated 
by  Christian  baptism,  and  this  was  the  doctrine  held  by 
the  Apostles  as  received  from  the  Master's  lips,  is  it  not 
passing  strange  that  so  little  is  subsequently  said  by  them 
on  the  subject  ?  That  there  is  in  the  Gospel  nothing  more 
than  a  brief  account  of  its  institution  is  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained by  the  fact  that  it  was  not  instituted  until  the 
time  at  which  tht3  Gospel  narrative  closes ;  but  the  Epis- 
tles were  written  afterward,  and  were  intended  to  explain 
and  supplement  the  teaching  of  the  Gospels.  Li  Romans, 
baptism  is  only  twice  mentioned,  and  in  1  Corinthians, 
seven  times  ;  in  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Hebrews, 
and  1  Peter,  we  find  it  named  once  in  each  Epistle.  In 
thirteen  of  the  remaining  Epistles  it  is  neither  named 
nor  referred  to.  In  the  two  pastoral  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
where  we  might  expect  something  about  baptism,  if  any- 
where, there  is  not  a  word  about  it.  In  the  Epistle  to 
Titus,  the  only  text  which  can  possibly  be  applied  to  bap- 
tism, is  by  no  means  clearly  applicable.  (Tit.  iii.  5.)  Nor 
is  this  all.  In  the  one  Epistle  which  mentions  baptism 
seven  times,  we  find  the  writer  saying  that '  Christ  sent 
him  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel,'  and  actu- 
ally '  thanking  God '  that  he  had  '  baptized  none  of  the 
Corinthians,  save  Crispus  and  Gains.'  (1  Cor.  i.  14,  17.) 
He  could  surely  never  have  said  this,  if  all  whom  he  bap- 
tized were  at  once  born  again.  Imagine  St.  Paul  saying 
'  I  thank  God  I  regenerated  none  of  you  ! '  Moreover,  it 
is  a  startling  fact,  that  this  very  same  Apostle  in  the  very 
same  Epistle,  says  to  these  same  Corinthians,  '  I  have  be- 
gotten you  through  the  Gospel.'  (1  Cor.  iv.  14.)  My  de- 
liberate conviction  is,  that  St.  Paul  would  never  have 
written  these  sentences,  if  he  had  believed  that  the  only 


BaptLmal  Regeneration  Defined.  207 

way  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  was  to  be  baptized."  (Hyle 
on  Jno.  iii.  5.)  For  all  those  reasons  we  reject  the  idea 
that  our  Lord  is  here  speaking  of  Christian  baptism. 

What,  then,  did  he  mean  when  he  said  to  Nicodemus — 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God?"  In  order  to  a  true 
aaswer,  let  us  place  ourselves  as  far  as  possible,  in  the 
circumstances  of  Nicodemus  at  the  time  he  heard  them. 
All  agree  that  our  Lord  uttered  these  words  in  order  to 
explain  his  previous  declaration  at  which  Nicodemus  was 
stumbling,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God  ; " — And  if  he  honestly  meant  to  explain, 
he  must  use  words  in  the  sense  in  which  he  has  reason  to 
believe  his  hearers  will  understand  him. 

Nicodemus  was  familiar  with  "  the  divers  washings " 
(baptisms)  prescribed  by  Moses'  Law.  He  must  have 
heard  of,  if  he  had  not  witnessed — possibly  he  had  received 
— John's  baptism  with  water.  He  could  hardly  have  been 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  Christ,  by  his  disciples,  was  ad- 
ministering water  baptism  to  multitudes  (Jno.  iv.  1,  2.) 
What  did  he  understand  these  "purifications" — for  they 
were  all  "purifications"  in  the  Old  Testament  sense  of 
that  word — to  be  ?  We  answer,  if  he  studied  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  or  listened  to  John's  own  exposition 
of  the  rite  he  administered,  he  understood  them  to  be  sim- 
ply symbolic  rites,  by  which  the  recipient  was  formally 
set  apart  to  God's  service ;  either  his  service  in  general,  or 
to  some  particular  service  that  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  called  for.  (See  §29.)  And  so,  when  our  Lord  said 
to  him  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God"  he  would  understand 
him  to  mean — Except  a  man  be  set  apart  to  God's  service 
by  a  work  of  the  Spirit  wrought  in  his  soul,  such  as  is 
symbolized  in  baptism  with  water,  he  cannot  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  With  water  baptism  as  a  consecrating 
rite,  and  the  symbol,  the  shadow,  of  a  better  baptism  he 
is  well  acquainted.  Of  a  water  baptism  any  other  than 
this  he  knows  nothing. 

That  the  regenerating  work  of  the  Spirit,  now  that 
Christian  baptism   has  been  established  in  the  Church,  is 


208  The  Doctrine  of  Bajjtisms. 

symbolized  in  tliat  rite,  we  do  not  doubt,  but  this  by  no 
means  implies  the  admission  that  Christ  speaks  of  that 
ordinance  here.  In  our  Lord's  words  "Whoso  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life  "  (Jno.  vi. 
54,)  there  is  the  same  truth  expressed  which  was  after- 
wards incorporated  in  the  symbolic  teaching  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  So  here,  in  his  words  "Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God"  there  is  the  same  truth  expressed  which  was  after- 
wards incorporated  in  the  symbolic  teaching  of  Christian 
Baptism.  Li  both  cases  alike,  the  similarity  in  the  figure 
of  the  language,  and  the  symbolism  of  the  subsequently 
instituted  sacrament,  is  explained  in  the  fact,  that  both 
alike  are  traceable  to  a  common  fountain-head  in  the  or- 
dinances of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation, — the  one,  in 
the  ordinance  of  sacrifice,  especially  the  feast  upon  the 
sacrifice :  the  other  in  the  ordinance  of  purification. 

Our  interpretation  of  our  Lord's  language  is  confirmed 
by  comparing  it  with  similar  language  used  in  the  New 
Testament.  Li  Matt.  iii.  11,  it  is  foretold  of  Christ  that 
"  he  shall  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
There  was  undoubtedly  a  literal  fulfilment  of  this  declara- 
tion of  John,  at  Jerusalem,  on.  the  first  Christian  Pente- 
cost, when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  shed  forth  upon  the  as- 
sembled disciples  in  the  visible  form  of  tongues  of  fire 
(see  Acts  ii.  3)  but  this  is  not  all  the  words  mean.  The 
visible  tongues  of  fire  symbolized  a  purifying  influence 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  soul,  similar  to  that 
wrought  by  fire  in  the  mass  of  dross  and  metal  submitted 
to  its  action, — and  the  subsequent  life  of  the  disciples  gave 
evidence  of  the  reality  of  such  a  work: — and  so  John's 
words  are  generally  understood  to  mean,  "  he  shall  con- 
secrate you  to  God's  service  by  a  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
fitly  symbolized  by  the  purifying  work  of  fire."  So,  in  1 
Cor.  ii.  4,  Paul's  words  "  my  preaching  was  ...  in  de- 
monstration of  the  Spirit,  an<i  in  power,"  are  just  eqiva- 
lent  to  "in  demonstration  of  the  powerful  Spirit." 

§  65.  Epheslans  v.  25-27. 
"  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Defined.  209 

the  Church,  and  gave  himself  for  it ;  that  he  might  sanc- 
tify and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word, 
that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not 
having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing;  but  that  it 
should  be  holy  and  without  blemish." 

Next  to  Jno.  iii.  5,  already  examined,  this  is  the  pas- 
sage most  confidently  appealed  to  by  the  advocates  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration. 

Respecting  the  general  import  of  the  passage  there  is  no 
difference  of  opinion.  The  Church  is  here  spoken  of, 
figuratively,  as  the  bride  of  Christ.  Such  language  is 
common  in  Scripture.  "Thy  Maker  is  thy  Husband;  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  is  his  name."  (Isa.  liv.  5.)  "As  the  bride- 
groom rejoice th  over  the  bride,  so  shall  thy  God  rejoice 
over  thee."  (Isa.  Ixii.  5.)  ''  For  I  am  jealous  over  you  with 
godly  jealousy:  for  I  have  espoused  you  to  one  husband, 
that  I  may  present  you  as  a  chaste  virgin  to  Christ." 
(2  Cor.  xi.  2.) 

"  Such  being  the  high  destiny  of  the  Church,  the  proxi- 
mate end  of  Christ's  death  was  to  purify,  and  adorn,  and 
render  it  glorious,  that  it  might  be  prepared  to  sit  with 
him  on  his  throne.  She  is  to  be  as  a  bride  adorned  for 
her  husband.  These  are  not  imaginations,  nor  exaggera- 
tions, nor  empty  figures ;  but  simple,  Scriptural,  sanctify- 
ing and  saving  truths.  And  what  is  true  of  the  Church 
generally,  is  true  of  its  members  severally.  Each  is  the 
object  of  Christ's  peculiar  love.  Each  sustains  to  him 
this  peculiar,  exclusive,  and  intimate  relation.  Each  is 
the  object  in  which  he  thus  delights,  and  each  is  to  be 
made  perfectly  holy,  without  spot,  and  glorious."  (Hodge 
on  Ephesians,  v.  25-27.)    Thus  far  all  commentators  agree. 

Most  go  a  step  further, — and  agree  that  by  "  the  wash- 
ing of  water"  here,  we  are  to  understand  baptism;  not 
that  this  expression  is  never  used  in  another  sense ;  but 
because  this  is  its  most  common  sense;  and  one  which  the 
language  of  the  context  seems  to  demand. 

Those  who  would  make  this  passage  teach  baptismal 
regeneration  contend: 

1.  That  by  "  the  word  "  here  spoken  of,  we  are  to  under- 
stand the  baptismal  formula — "  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name 


210  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
To  this  we  object  that  "the  word"  {rama)  is  never  used 
in  Scripture  in  any  such  sense  as  this.  When  used  as 
here,  without  any  qualifying  word,  it  is  to  be  understood 
in  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  or  the  gospel.  "  The  word 
is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart:  that  is 
the  word  of  faith  which  we  preach."  (Rom.  x.  8.)  "But 
the  word  of  the  Lord  endureth  forever.  And  this  is  the 
word  which  by  the  gospel  is  preached  unto  you."  (1  Pet. 
i.  25.)  "But,  beloved,  remember  ye  the  words  which 
were  spoken  before  of  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  (Jude  17).  There  is  a  propriety  in  this  use  of 
the  expression,  just  as  there  is  in  giving  the  name  of  the 
Scriptures  to  that  written  revelation  of  truth  which  God 
has  given  to  man. 

2.  That  the  great  change  here  designated  by  the  words 
"sanctify  and  cleanse,"  is  a  change  wrought  at  once,  and 
in  baptism.  This  do3s  not  agree,  even  on  their  own 
showing,  with  the  completeness  of  the  work  as  set  forth 
in  the  words  "a  glorious  Church,  not  having  spot,  or 
wrinkle  or  any  such  thing;  but  that  it  should  be  holy 
and  without  blemish."  The  Council  of  Trent  declares 
that  even  after  regeneration  in  baptism  "there  remains 
conGapisc3nce,  or  an  incentive  to  sin,"  and  that  this  re- 
sults in  numerous  actual  sins  in  the  after  life  of  the  bap- 
tized. If  this  were  not  the  case,  there  would  be  no  need 
of  the  other  sacraments  to  secure  salvation; — especially — 
no  need  of  confession,  and  penance,  and  absolution,  and 
last  of  all,  the  cleansing  efficacy  of  the  fires  of  purgatory. 
Concupiscence,  if  it  does  not  possess  the  dignity  of  "  a 
spot,"  is  certainly  a  spiritual  "  wrinkle,  or  some  such 
thing,"  and  as  long  as  it  exists  in  a  soul,  that  soul  cannot 
be  said  to  be  "  without  blemish." 

Dr.  Stone  gives  a  more  literal  rendering  of  ver.  26 : — 
"  That  having  cleansed  it  by  the  washing  of  water,  he 
might  sanctify  it  by  the  Word ; " — and  he  makes  the  fol- 
lowing just  criticism  on  the  language  of  the  text.  "The 
really  instrumental  character  of  '  the  Word  '  is  indicated 
by  the  use  of  a  preposition,  en  ramati;  while  the  em- 
blematical cleansing  with  water  is  expressed  without  any 


Baptismal  Iicgcncration  Defined.  211 

preposition.  With  the  washing  of  water  emblematically 
representing;  by  the  word  instrumentally  effecting,  the 
divinely  cleansing  process.  Katharizo  is  used,  properly, 
of  external  cleansing,  as  of  the  washing  of  the  body  in 
water;  Agiazo  is  used  of  internal  purifyings,  as  of  sancti- 
fying the  soul  by  the  Spirit,  through  the  truth."  {The 
Christian  Sacraments,  p.  299.) 

As  thus  interpreted  the  lesson  of  the  text  is  in  perfect 
accord  with  the  teaching  of  other  Scriptures.  (1)  The 
Word  of  God's  truth  is  said  to  sanctify — instrumentally, 
of  course — as  in  such  passages  as  the  following.  "  Now 
ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  unto 
you."  (John  xv.  3.)  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth, 
thy  word  is  truth."  (John  xvii.  17.)  "Of  his  own  will 
begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a 
kind  of  first  fruits  of  his  creatures."  (James  i.  18.)  "  As 
new-born  babes  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  that 
ye  may  grow  thereby."  (1  Pet.  ii.  2.)  (2)  As  the  Pro- 
phets are  said  to  do  that  which  they  only  predict,  e.  g., 
"  See,  I  have  this  day  set  thee  over  the  nations  and  over 
the  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  de- 
stroy, and  to  throw  down,  to  build  and  to  plant,"  (Jer.  i. 
10),  so  in  the  use  of  sacramental  language,  a  sign  is  said 
-to  accomplish  that  which  it  only  signifies,  e.  g.,  "Circum- 
cise therefore  the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  and  be  no  more 
stiff-necked."  (Deut.  x.  16.) 

The  true  sense  of  this  passage  is  well  expressed  in 
McKnight's  paraphrase  of  it — "Christ  also  loved  his 
spouse,  the  Church,  and  gave  himself  to  die  for  her,  that 
he  might  sanctify  her,  and  fit  her  for  becoming  his  spouse, 
having  cleansed  her  emlilematically  hj  baptism,  as  brides 
are  wont  to  be  cleansed  with  a  bath  of  water,  and  with 
the  word  from  the  superstitions  of  Judaism  and  heathen- 
ism. Christ  thus  cleanses  the  Church,  that  at  the  day  of 
judgment,  (see  Rev.  xix.  7)  he  may  present  her  to  himself, 
glorious,  not  with  attire  but  with  the  beauty  of  holiness, 
a  Church  not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  imperfec- 
tion, but  that  she  may  be  perfectly  amiable,  (lovely)  both 
in  mind  and  body,  being  holy,  and  without  any  blemish." 
{McKnight  on  the  Epistles.) 


212  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


§66.   Titus  ill  5,  6. 

"Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done, 
but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour." 

The  Apostle  is  here  speaking  of  salvation  as  it  had 
come  to  himself,  and  Titus,  and  the  Cretan  Christians  to 
whom  Titus  was  then  ministering.  Respecting  this  sal- 
vation he  says : — 

(1)  That  it  came  "not  by  works  of  righteousness  which 
we  have  done,  but  through  God's  mercy,"  ^.  e.,  favor  to 
the  ill-deserving ;  or,  as  he  expresses  ther  same  truth  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans;  this  salvation  was  not  "by 
works "  but  "  by  grace."  (Rom.  xi.  6.)  On  this  point 
there  is  but  little  difference  of  opinion. 

(2.)  That  this  salvation  was  effected  by  the  "  washing 
of  regeneration,  and  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  was  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour."  Respecting  Paul's  meaning  here  com- 
mentators differ. 

Taking  it  for  granted  that  by  "  the  washing  of  re- 
generation "  Paul  means  Christian  baptism ;  —  let  the 
reader  notice  just  what  it  is  the  Apostle  affirms.  It  is 
not  that  we  are  regenerated  by  baptism,  through  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost, — that  would  be  baptismal 
regeneration, — but  that  we  are  saved  by  baptism,  and 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Regeneration  is  but 
the  beginning  of  salvation  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the 
word.  Salvation  includes  progressive  sanctification,  and 
complete  redemption,  such  as  the  saint  shall  possess  when 
he  is  received  up  into  glory.  Respecting  this  salvation 
Paul  affirms,  that  two  agencies  are  employed  of  God  in 
its  accomplishment,  viz.,  Christian  baptism,  and  the  re- 
newing agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour. 

I.  How  can  Christian  baptism  be  said  to  save  the 
Christian?     We  answer  —  (1.)  Christian    baptism   as   a 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Defined.  213 

sacrament  of  divine  appointment, — not  only  symbolizes 
regeneration ;  but  as  the  seal  of  a  covenant,  secures  re- 
generation on  the  conditions  of  the  covenant;  And  (2) 
By  introducing  the  baptized  person  into  the  visible 
Church,  it  secures  to  him  tlie  enjoyment  of  the  ministry 
of  the  Word,  and  the  ordinances  of  the  Church,  God's 
ordinary  means  of  salvation  for  lost  men.  Christian  bap- 
tism may  be  said  to  save,  in  the  same  way  in  which  the 
gospel  is  said  to  save.    (See  1  Cor.  i.  21.) 

2.  The  Holy  Ghost  saves  by  "  renewing "  the  sinner, 
"  creating  him  anew  unto  good  works,"  (Eph.  ii.  10,)  and 
having  thus  implanted  a  new  principle  of  life,  by  main- 
taining that  new  life  as  an  in-dwelling  spirit  in  the  saints. 
(1  Cor.  iii.  16.)  Thus  understanding  the  matter,  the 
Apostle  is  telling  the  simple  truth  when  he  says — We  are 
saved  by  Christian  baptism  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Christian  baptism  is  called  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
because  it  symbolizes,  makes  known  regeneration;  just  as 
the  Word  is  called  "  the  word  of  this  salvation  "  (Acts 
xiii.  26),  "the  word  of  fiiith  "  (Rom.  x.  8),  "  the  word  of 
life"  (Phil.  ii.  16).  Baptism  and  the  preached  Word  save, 
simply  as  "means  of  grace,"  appointed  of  God  to  that  end. 

§  67.  Acts  xxii.  16 . 

"  And  now  why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise,  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

The  baptism  here  spoken  of  was  undoubtedly  the  sacra- 
ment of  Christian  baptism.  Does  Ananias  here  call  upon 
Paul  to  receive  this  sacrament  as  "  the  instrumental  cause 
of  regeneration  ?  "  To  this  question,  we  answer — No. 
Paul  was  already  regenerated,  had  already  been  born  again, 
as  is  evident  from  the  Scripture  record.  , 

(1)  He  has  made  an  entire  surrender  of  himself  to  Christ 
in  his  words — "  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do," 
(Acts  ix.  6.)  And  Christ  has  accepted  of  that  surrender, 
as  is  evident  from  his  words  addressed  to  Ananias,  when 
sending  him  on  his  mission — "  he  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto 
m3,  to  bear  my  name  before  the  Gentiles,  and  kings,  and 


214  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

the  children  of  Israel."  (Acts  ix.  15).  That  the  surrender 
on  Paul's  part  was  an  entire  surrender,  is  rendered  evident 
by  his  conduct.  He  whom  he  has  hitherto  regarded  and 
spoken  of  as  a  vile  impostor,  a  crucified  malefactor,  he  now 
addresses  as  his  Lord ;  and  So  thoroughly  submissive  is 
he,  that  he  hesitates  not  a  moment  in  obeying  what  must 
have  seemed  to  him  a  strange  command — "  Arise  and  go 
into  the  city,  and  it  shall  be  told  thee  what  thou  must 
do."  (Acts  ix.  6.)  In  all  this  he  exhibits  one,  of  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  us  to  look  upon  as  the  characteristic 
marks  of  a  regenerate  man.  (See  1  John  v.  1-3.) 

(2)  The  Lord's  testimony  respecting  him  is,  "  behold  he 
prayeth,"  (Acts  ix.  11.)  As  these  words  are  spoken  to 
remove  Ananias'  fear  arising  from  his  knowledge  of  Paul's 
previous  character  as  a  bitter  persecutor  of  the  followers 
of  Christ,  they  must  be  understood  to  mean  that  he  is  now 
a  changed  man.  The  prayer  here  spoken  of  must  have 
been  the  prayer  of  faith,  as  our  Lord  treats  it  as  such,  and 
is  providing  for  its  answer  at  the  very  time  he  says  "  be- 
hold he  prayeth."  Now,  the  prayer  of  faith  can  be  offered 
by  none  but  the  regenerate  man. 

(3)  Ananias  addresses  him  as  a  regenerate  person, 
"  Brother  Saul,"  or  as  Alexander  renders  it,  "  Saul,  my 
Brother."  It  is  true  that  the  title  of  Brother  was  given 
by  a  Jew  to  his  fellow  Jew ;  and  it  is  equally  true  that  it 
was  the  title  in  earliest  use  among  Christians,  as  a  title 
by  which  to  recognize  each  other  as  fellow  Christians.  That 
Ananias  uses  it  here  in  its  Christian  sense  appears  from 
his  using  it  in  immediate  connection  with  the  words — 
"  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  thee  in  the 
way  as  thou  camest,  hath  sent  me  that  thou  mightest  re- 
ceive thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Acts 
ix.  17.)  To  be  "  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  a  stronger 
expression  than  to  "  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  is  never 
used  respecting  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration ;  but 
always  respecting  that  gift  as  bestowed  in  abundant  mea- 
sure upon  those  already  Christians.  (See  Acts  ii.  4,  iv.  8, 
xii.  9,  52.)  Ananias  does  not  say  that  he  has  been  sent 
that  he  might  preach  the  gospel,  make  known  to  Saul  the 
way  of  sanation,  but  "  thtit  he  (Saul)  might  receive  his 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Defined,  215 

sight,"  a  miraculous  restoration  of  sight  which  occurred 
then  and  there,  "  and  be  lilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  " — in 
all  this  addressing  him,  and  treating  him  as  already  a 
Christian. 

If  Saul  was  already  a  regenerate*  man,  what  did  An- 
anias mean  by  saying  to  him — "  Arise,  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord? " 
We  answer :  Christian  baptism  symbolizes  the  washing 
away  of  sins ;  and  in  receiving  it  in  the  presence  of  others, 
in  the  circumstances  in  wdiich  Saul  stood,  it  was  a  profes- 
sion of  his  belief  that  his  sins  were  washed  away,  and 
that  he  was  a  new  man, — and  so,  a  confession  of  Christ 
openly.  Faith  and  baptism  (Mark  xvi.  16),  believing  with 
the  heart,  and  confessing  with  the  mouth  (Rom.  x.  9),  are 
both  represented  as  conditions  of  salvation  under  the  gospel, 
not  that  they  are  equally  essential — "  baptism  has  the 
necessity  of  precept,  not  the  necessity  of  a  means  sine  qua 
non."  (Hodge).  And  that  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  Ana- 
nias' word  is  clear  from  what  immediately  follows — "  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  i.e.,  "invoking  it  in  worship, 
recognizing  Christ's  divinity  and  sovereignty."  {Alexander.) 
So  Saul,  familiar  as  he  was  with  the  symbolic,  ceremonial 
worship  established  by  Moses'  law,  would  undoubtedly  un- 
derstand the  words. 

§  C8.  Acts  ii.  37,  38. 

"Now  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  pricked  in  their 
hearts,  and  said  unto  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles, 
lien  and  brethren,  what  s]iall  we  do  ?  Then  Peter  said  unto 
them.  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Here  two  distinct  acts  are  required — one,  an  inward 
act  of  the  soul,  repentance ;  the  other,  an  outward  act  of 
the  body,  baptism  ;  and  both  are  spoken  of  as  pre-requisites 
to  the  "  remission  of  sins,"  the  especial  matter  about  which 
the  question  of  the  convicted  multitude  was  asked. 

The  repentance  here  spoken  of,  as  is  evident  from  the 
connection  in  which  it  is  placed  with  "the  remiiision  of 


216  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

sins,"  is  what  we  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  as  "repentance 
unto  life," — that  "  saving  grace,  whereby  a  sinner,  out  of  a 
true  sense  of  his  sin,  and  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of 
God  in  Christ,  doth  "vyith  grief  and  hatred  of  his  sin,  turn 
from  it  unto  God,  with  full  purpose  of  and  endeavor  after 
new  obedience." ^—(Westminster  Shorter  Catechism,  Ans. 
87).  Such  a  repentance,  if  genuine,  must  "  bring  forth 
fruits  meet  for  repentance,"  (Matt.  iii.  8,  Acts  xxvi.  20;) 
must  result  in  a  hearty  obedience  unto  Christ. 

A  public  confession  of  Christ  is  solemnly  enjoined  by  him 
as  a  duty,  and  a  precious  promise  is  given  to  the  obedient; 
a  denial  of  Christ  is  declared  to  be  a  sin,  and  a  solemn 
judgment  is  denounced  against  the  one  guilty  of  that  sin. 
(See  Matt.  x.  32,  33.)  This  confession  may  be  made  by 
simply  speaking  publicly  on  Christ's  behalf ;  as  was  done 
by  the  thief  who  was  brought  to  repentance  after  he  had 
been  nailed  to  the  cross,  when  answering  his  fellow  male- 
factor who  "  railed  on  Christ,"  he  "  rebuked  him,  saying. 
Dost  not  thou  fear  God,  seeing  thou  art  in  the  same  condem- 
nation? And  we,  indeed,  justly,  for  we  receive  the  due  re- 
ward of  our  deeds;  but  this  man  hath  done  nothing  amiss." 
(Luke  xxiii.  40,  41.)  Or,  it  may  be  made  by  openly 
forsaking  all  and  following  Christ,  as  was  done  by  the 
Apostles.  Or,  it  may  be  made  by  coming  publicly  to  the 
Lord's  table,  as  is  done  in  our  day  by  multitudes  who  have 
received  baptism  in  infancy,  but  have  not  been  brought  to 
repentance  until  late  in  life.  Or,  it  may  be  made,  and 
should  be  made  by  persons  occupying  the  position  which 
Peter's  hearers  did  on  this  first  Christian  Pentecost,  by 
publicly  receiving  baptism  in  the  na,me  of  Jesus  Christ. 
By  this  act,  as  all  the  Jews  would  understand  it,  a  person 
declared  himself  a  disciple  of  Jesus. 

When  Peter  answered  his  awakened  and  convicted 
hearers  "  Bepent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  he  meant — 
(1.)  To  enjoin  both  baptism  and  repentance  as  conditions  of 
the  remission  of  sin  to  persons  in  the  circumstances  in 
which  they  stood ;  and  (2.)  To  declare  that  their  repentance 
was  not  a  repentance  unto  life,  if  it  did  not  lead  them  to 
the  confession  of  Christ  in  baptism.     Thus,  and  thus  only, 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Defined.  217 

can  we  make  Peter's  doctrine  oti  this  occasion  harmonize 
with  that  he  preached  shortly  afterwards,  when  before  the 
Council: — "Him  (Jesus)  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right 
hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance 
to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins,"  (Acts  v.  31,)  where  re- 
pentance alone  is  spoken  of  as  a  condition  of  forgiveness  or 
remission  of  sins,  and  nothing  is  said  of  baptism. 

With  the  exception  of  two  passages,  of  which  an  exposi- 
tion has  already  been  given,  viz.:  Kom.  vi.  1-6,  (see  §  34, 
35,)  and  1  Pet.  iii.  18-22,  (see  §  23,)  we  have  now  examined 
all  the  scripture  proof  by  which  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration  is  sought  to  be  established  by  its  advocates ; 
and  with  the  whole  case  before  us,  we  express  the  convic- 
tion that  the  doctrine  is  utterly  without  support  in  the 
Word  of  God. 


§69,  Romans  v.  12-14. 

"Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for 
that  all  have  sinned:  (For  until  the  law,  sin  was  in  the 
world;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  l9,w. 
Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even 
over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of 
Adam's  transgreseion,  who  is  a  figure  of  him  that  was  to 
come.)" 

This  passage  is  quoted  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  (see 
§63,)  not  in  proof  of  baptismal  regeneration;  but  in  proof 
of  the  original  sin  of  infants,  and  so  of  the  necessity  of 
baptismal  regeneration  in  order  to  their  salvation. 

Controverting  the  position  assumed  by  A.  Barnes,  in 
his  "Notes  on  Komans,"  Archbishop  Kenrick  writes: — 
"The  Apostle  testifies  to  a  fact  when  he  declares:  'By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  this  world,  and  by  sin  death; 
and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  in  whom  all  have  sinned.' 
If  the  sin  of  Adam  did  not  directly,  and  as  a  cause  induce 
the  guilt  of  the  human  race,  there  was  no  ground  for 
stating  that  'so  death  passed  upon  all  men;'  for  in  many 
of  them  it  would  not  be  tlie  efiect  of  sin,  since  a  vast  por- 
tion of  our  race  die  before  the  age  of  reason,  and  conse- 
10 


218  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisins. 

quently  without  any  -actual  sin.  In  this  theory,  whiiih 
may  be  traced  to  the  days  of  Pelagius,  death  is  not  the 
effect  of  Adam's  sin,  even  as  to  adults,  but  is  caused 
by  personal  sins,  to  which  Adam  contributed  no  further 
than  by  the  perverse  example  of  his  disobedience.  The 
connection  then  between  Adam's  sin,  and  the  necessity  of 
death,  which  involves  all,  adults  and  infants,  is  destroyed 
by  this  interpretation,  which  further  contradicts  the  posi- 
tive testimony,  'in  whom  all  have  sinned.'  Whether  this 
version  be  admitted,  or  the  text  be  rendered,  as  some  will 
have  it,  'inasmuch  as  all  have  sinned,'  the  fact  of  sin  being 
common  to  all  who  die,  equally  results  from  it,  death  being 
caused  in  all  by  sin :  wherefore,  as  infants  are  manifestly 
incapable  of  actual  sin,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  are 
sinners,  in  consequence  of  the  act  of  the  first  man,  by 
which  he  and  his  posterity  fell  from  original  justice  and 
innocence.  '  Death,'  says  the  Apostle, '  reigned  from  Adam 
unto  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the 
similitude  of  the  transgression  of  Adam. '  Before  the  pro- 
mulgation of  the  law  on  Sinai,  and  the  transgressions  con- 
sequent thereon,  death  held  its  sway  over  the  human  race, 
even  over  infants  who  had  not  sinned  actually,  as  Adam 

sinned Let  those  who  say,  that  the  Apostle  means 

only  that  death  is  universal,  because  men  generally  prove 
transgressors,  show  how  this  accounts  for  the  pains,  suf- 
ferings, and  death  of  millions  of  children  before  the  use  of 
reason."  {Xenrick  on  BajDtism,  pp.  63,  4,  5.) 

The  Council  of  Trent  and  Archbishop  Kenrick,  in  their 
comments  on  this  passage,  reason  correctly, — present,  in 
fact,  just  the  argument  of  the  Apostle, — that  the  death  of 
infants  proves  them  guilty  of  "original  sin."  That  death 
and  sin  stand  so  related  under  the  government  of  a  just; 
Grod,  that  the  existence  of  the  one  establishes  the  existence 
of  the  other; — and,  as  infants,  "before  the  use  of  reason" 
are  incapable  of  actual  sin,  and  yet  millions  of  them  die, 
the  cause  of  their  death  must  be  "original  sin." 

But  many  of  these  millions  of  infants  who  die  "  before 
the  use  of  reason," — the  large  majority  of  them  in  Catholic 
communities— die  after  they  have  received  baptism;  and 
that,  baptism   with   all  the   rites   and   ceremonies  of  the 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Defined.  219 

Church  of  Rome.  How  is  this  fact  k)  be  reconciled  with 
the  doctrine  that  "  the  guilt  of  original  sin  is  remitted  in 
baptism," — that  in  baptism,  "  that  is  cleansed  away  by- 
regeneration  which  they  have  contracted  by  generation," — 
that  by  baptism  infants  "  are  made  innocent,  immaculate, 
pure,  harmless,  and  beloved  of  God,  heirs  indeed  of  God 
and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  so  that  there  is  nothing  what- 
ever to  retard  their  entrance  into  heaven?"  Since  death, 
in  the  case  of  infants,  occurs  just  as  frequently  between 
baptism  and  the  age  at  which  the  commission  of  actual  sin 
is  possible,  as  it  does  before  baptism,  if,  as  the  Apostle 
reasons,  the  death  of  infants  establishes  the  charge  of 
"original  sin"  against  them,  does  it  not  establish  that 
charge  just  as  conclusively  after  baptism  as  it  does  be- 
fore ?  and  so,  sweep  away  this  whole  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration  ? 


220  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 


CHAPTEE  III. 

"sacramental  geace." 

g  70.  Grace  conferred  "  ex  opere  operato."  g  71.  Infant  Salvation,  g  72.  Baptis- 
mal Regeneration  contradicted  by  experience  and  observation.  §73,  "An- 
other Gospel." 

§  70.  Grace  conferred  "  ex  opere  operato." 

"  Canon  vi.  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  sacraments  of 
"  the  New  Law  do  not  contain  the  grace  which  they  sig- 
"nify  or,  that  they  do  not  confer  that  grace  on  those  who 
"  do  not  place  an  obstacle  thereunto ;  as  though  they  were 
"merely  outward  signs  of  grace  or  justice  received 
"  through  faith,  and  certain  marks  of  the  Christian  pro- 
"  fession,  whereby  believers  are  distinguished  amongst  men 
"from  unbelievers,  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  vii.  If  any  one  saith  that  grace,  so  far  as  God's 
"  part  is  concerned,  is  not  given  through  the  said  sacra- 
"  ments,  always,  and  to  all  men,  even  though  they  receive 
"  them  rightly,  but  only  sometimes,  and  to  some  persons, 
"  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  viii.  If  any  one  saith,  that  by  the  said  sacra- 
"  ments  of  the  New  Law  grace  is  not  conferred  ex  opere 
"operato  through  the  act  performed,  but  that  faith  alone 
"  in  the  divine  promise  suffices  for  the  obtaining  of  grace 
" — let  him  be  anathema."  (Council  of  Trent,  Session  vii.) 

"The  principal  effects  of  the  sacraments  are  two  :  sanc- 
"  tifying  grace,  and  the  character  which  they  impress. 
"  The  former,  that  is,  the  grace  which  we,  in  common 
"  with  the  doctors  of  the  Church,  call  sanctifying  grace, 
"  deservedly  holds  the  first  place.  That  this  is  an  effect 
"  produced  by  the  sacraments,  we  know  from  these  words 
"  of  the  Apostle :  '  Christ,'  says  he,  '  loved  the  Church, 


■Grace  Conferred  "ex  opere  operato."  221 

"  and  delivered  himself  up  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
"  it,  cleansing  it  by  the  laver  of  water  in  the  word  of 
"  life.'  (Eph.  V.  25,  26).  But  how  so  great  and  so  admira- 
"  bl^  an  etfect  is  produced  by  the  sacraments,  that,  to  use 
"  the  words  of  St.  Augustine,  '  water  cleanses  the  body, 
"and  reaches  the  heart;'  this,  indeed,  the  mind  of  man, 
"  aided  by  the  light  of  reason  alone,  is  unequal  to  compre- 
"  hend.  It  ought  to  be  an  established  law,  that  nothing 
"  sensible  can,  of  its  own  nature,  reach  the  soul ;  but  we 
"  know  by  the  light  of  foith,  that  in  the  sacraments  decisis 
"  the  power  of  the  omnipotent,  effectuating  that  which  the 
"  natural  elements  cannot  of  themselves  accomplish." 
{Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  109,  110.) 

From  the  above-quoted  extracts  from  the  canons  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  the  catechism  of  that  Council,  which 
is  an  authoritative  exposition  of  the  canons,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  Church  of  Eome  teaches  that  the  sacraments  do 
immediately  and  absolutely  confer  sanctifying  grace, 

"  But  Romish  Theologians  are  far  from  being  of  one 
mind,  as  to  the  nature  of  this  immediate  and  absolute  effi- 
cacy. Their  views  may  be  grouped  with  tolerable  accu- 
racy under  two  classes :  One  class,  embracing  the  Jesuits 
and  more  Popish  Papists,  regard  the  opus  operatum  effi- 
cacy as  a  proper  and  literal  effect  of  the  sacramental  ele- 
ment and  words  of  institution,  by  their  own  immediate 
causation.  They  do  not,  and  cannot  explain  the  nature  of 
this  causation,  unless  it  be  literally  physical ;  and  then  it 
is  absurd.  The  other  class,  including  Jansenists,  and  the 
more  spiritual,  regard  the  sacramental  efficacy  as  spiritu- 
al— i.  e.,  as  the  almighty  redeeming  influence  of  Christ, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  purchased  for  sinners  by  Christ ; 
which  spiritual  influence,  they  suppose,  God  has  been 
pleased  in  his  mercy  to  tie  by  a  constant  purpose  and 
gracious  promise  to  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  canon- 
ically  administered,  by  a  tie  gracious  and  positive,  yet  ab- 
solute and  unconditional,  so  that  the  sacramental  efficacy 
goes  to  every  human  being  to  whom  the  elements  go  with 
the  proper  words  of  institution,  whether  the  recipient  ex- 
ercise faith  or  not.  That  is,  God  has  been  pleased,  in  his 
sovereign  mercy  to  the  Church,  to  make  her  sacraments 


222  The  Doctrine  of  Baptism. 

the  essential  and  unfailing  channels  of  his  spiritual  grace." 
{Dabneys  Theology,  pp.  739,  740.) 

This  quotation  from  Dabney's  Theology  gives  a  clear, 
and — as  we  believe — a  fair  statement  of  the  two  doct];;ines 
respecting  the  way  in  which  the  sacraments  "  confer 
grace,"  entertained  by  Komish  theologians.  The  authors 
of  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  evidently  lean 
toward  the  Jesuit  doctrine.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
leading  American  defenders  of  Romish  doctrine,  adopt  the 
view* of  the  Jansenists. 

Archbishop  Kenrick  writes  :  "  According  to  Catholic 
belief,  baptism,  Hke  every  other  sacrament,  contains  an 
inherent  efficacy.  It  washes  away  the  stain  of  original 
sin,  and  whatever  actual  stains  may  have  been  contract- 
ed by  the  adult  receiver ;  it  regenerates  the  child  of 
Adam,  and  makes  him  a  child  of  God  ;  it  imparts  grace 
and  sanctity,  and  so  thoroughly  and  perfectly  purifies  and 
sanctifies,  that  where  no  obstacle  is  presented  by  the  re- 
ceiver, no  cause  of  condemnation  remains  in  him ;  so  that 
if  summoned  immediately  out  of  life,  nothing  whatever 
would  withhold  him  from  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  This 
grace  is  said  to  be  inherent  in  baptism,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
attached  to  it  by  the  divine  institution  of  our  Redeemer ; 
and  is  infallibly  imparted,  unless  when  the  incredulity  or 
perverseness  of  the  receiver  opposes  an  obstacle  to  its  ope- 
ration. There  is  no  virtue,  however,  ascribed  to  the  sac- 
rament, except  as  a  means  divinely  chosen  to  apply  to 
our  souls  the  merits  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  our 
Lord.  The  power  of  God  and  the  merits  of  our  Redeemer 
are  the  sources  of  sacramental  efficacy,  and  a  proper  state  of 
mind  in  adults — faith,  repentance,  hope,  and  a  commence- 
ment of  love,  are  required  to  receive  the  grace  which  the 
sacraments  convey.  From  this  explanation  it  will  appear 
that  the  phrase  ex  opere  operato,  which  is  a  bugbear  for 
Protestants,  is  a  very  harmless  expression."  [Kenrick  on 
Baptism,  pp.  100,  101.) 

On  the  above-quoted  statement  of  Archbishop  Kenrick, 
we  remark — 

1.  If  "  faith,  repentance,  hope,  and  a  commencement  of 
love,"  understanding  these  terms  in  their  Scriptural  sense. 


Grace  Conferred  "ex  opere  operator  223 

"  are  required  to  receive  the  grace  which  the  sacrament "  of 
baptism  conveys  to  the  adult,  there  is  no  room  left  for  the 
regeneration  which  he  teaches  that  baptism  effects ;  the 
man  is  regenerated  already.  The  result  of  regeneration, 
the  new  birth,  as  the  Scriptures  teach,  is  the  production 
of  a  "  new-born  babe"  (1  Pet.  ii.  2)  in  Christ,  not  a  per- 
fect man"  (Eph.  iv.  13)  in  the  maturity  of  Christian 
grace;  and  if  the  Scriptures  teach  us  anything  plainly, 
they  teach  us  plainly  that  "  repentance,  faith,  hope,  love," 
are  graces  characteristic  of  the  Christian  man ;  and,  of 
course,  in  their  beginning,  of  the  "new-born  babe."  Paul 
tells  us  that  "  faith,  hope"^  and  love  are  the  three  abiding 
Christian  graces,  the  three  Christian  graces  we  will  carry 
with  us  into  heaven  "  (1  Cos-,  xiii.  13  ;)  so  that  the  one 
who  has  them,  even  in  their  beginnings,  is  regenerated, 
born  again,  though  his  Christian  stature  be  but  that  of  an 
infant. 

2.  If  we  admit  that  "a  proper  state  of  mind"  is  re- 
quired in  the  case  of  an  adidt,  it  is  plain,  that_  nothing  of 
the  kind  can  be  required  in  the  case  of  an  infant.  As 
the  infant  is  incapable  of  actual  transgression  of  the  di- 
vine law,  so  is  he  incapable  of  the  gracious  exercises  of 
faith,  hope,  love,  even  their  beginnings.  And  yet  we 
are  told  that  baptism  effects  regeneration  in  an  infant,  if 
anything,  more  certainly  (because  the  infant  can  "  oppose 
no  obstacle  "  to  its  operation)  than  it  does  in  an  adult. 
In  countries  where  the  Komish  Church  is  established, 
nine-tenths  of  those  who  receive  baptism,  receive  it  in  in- 
fancy. Hence,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  presence  of  "  faith, 
hope,  love,"  if  they  be  present  in  the  soul  of  an  adult 
at  his  baptism,  is  a  mere  "accidental"  presence,  and  can 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  way  in  which  the  sacra- 
ment exerts  its  power;  and  so,  nothing  to  do  with  a 
proper  definition  of  the  phrase  ex  opere  operato. 

3.  "In  the  scholastic  jargon  of  Rome,  means  of  grace 
naturally  divide  themselves  into  two  classes — those  which 
do  good  ex  opere  operato,  and  those  which  onl)'-  do  good 
ex  opere  operantis.  The  former  do  good  by  the  simple 
performance  of  the  proper  ceremonial,  without  any  act  or 
movement  of  the  soul  in   the  recipients — accommodating 


224  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

themselves  intelligently  to  the  grace  signified.  The  latter 
only  do  good  when  the  recipient  exercises  the  appropriate 
acts  of  soul ;  and  the  good  done  is  dependent  on  those  ex- 
ercises, as  well  as  on  the  outward  means."  (Dabney's 
Theology,  p.  739.)  To  this  latter  class,  belongs  the 
preached  word,  of  which  we  read — "  For  unto  us  was  the 
Gospel  preached  as  well  as  unto  them ;  but  the  word 
preached  did  not  profit  them,  not  being  mixed  with  faith 
in  them  that  heard  it."  (Heb.  iv.  2.)  To  this  same  class, 
belong  the  sacraments. 

On  this  point  Dr.  Hodge  writes  :  "  There  is  a  strict 
analogy,  according  to  the  Reformed  doctrine,  between  the 
Word  and  the  Sacraments,  as  means  of  grace.  (1)  Both 
have  in  them  a  certain  moral  power  due  to  the  truth 
which  they  bring  before  the  mind.  (2)  Neiiher  has  in 
itself  any  supernatural  power  to  save  or  to  sanctify.  (3) 
All  their  supernatural  efficacy  is  due  to  the  co-operation 
or  attending  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  (4)  Both  are 
ordained  by  God  to  be  channels  or  means  of  the  Spirit's 
influence,  to  those  who  by  faith  receive  them.  Nothing  is 
said  in  the  Bible  to  place  the  sacraments  above  the  Word 
as  means  of  communicating  to  men  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
redemption.  On  the  contrary,  tenfold  more  is  said  in 
Scripture  of  the  necessity  and  efficacy  of  the  Word  in  the 
salvation  of  men,  than  is  therein  said  or  implied  of  the 
power  of  the  sacraments."  (Hodges  Theology,  Vol.  III., 
p.  502.) 

§  71.  The  Salvation  of  Infants. 
The  difi'erence  between  the  Romish  and  the  Reformed 
doctrine  respecting  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  comes 
out  most  distinctly  in  the  case  of  infants.  All,  alike,  hold 
that  in  consequence  of  original  sin  infants  are  unfit  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  unless  regenerated,  born 
again,  can  never  enter  there.  The  Romanist  holds  that 
baptism  efi'ects  regeneration  ex  opere  operato ;  and  fur- 
ther, that  regeneration  is  so  tied  to  baptism  that  it  is 
never  effected  without  it ;  and  consequently,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Council  of  Trent,  "  that  baptism  is  necessary 
unto  salvation."     The  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Treat, 


The  Salvation  of  Infants.  225 

p.  123,  teaches,  "  That  the  law  of  baptism  as  established 
by  our  Lord,  extends  to  all,  in  so  much,  that  unless  they 
are  regenerated  through  the  grace  of  baptism,  be  their  pa- 
rents Uhristians  or  infidels,  they  are  born  to  eternal  mise- 
ry and  everlasting  destruction."  And  Archbishop  Ken- 
rick  writes  :  "  But  what  shall  we  believe  in  regard  to  in- 
fants who  die  without  baptism  ?  Wo  must  hold,  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  our  Lord,  that  they  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  They  are  children  of  wrath,  not 
admitted  to  the  sight  of  their  heavenly  Father."  {Ken- 
riek  on  Baptism,  p.  88.) 

"  The  common  doctrine  of  evangelical  Protestants,  is 
that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved.  This  is  inferred 
from  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  analogy  between  Adam 
and  Christ.  'As  by  the  offence  of  one,judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  {oi  poUoi- 
pantes)  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one, 
shall  many  [oi  polloi-pantes)  be  made  righteous.'  (Rom. 
V.  18,  19.)  We  have  no  right  to  put  any  limit  on  these 
general  terms  except  what  the  Bible  itself  places  upon 
them.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  exclude  any  clas?  of  in- 
fants, baptized  or  unbaptized,  born  in  Christian  or  in  hea- 
then lands,  of  believing  or  unbelieving  parents,  from  the 
benefits  of  the  redemption  of  Christ.  All  the  descendants 
of  Adam  except  Christ,  are  under  condemnation ;  all  the 
descendants  of  Adam  except  those  of  whom  it  is  expressly 
revealed  that  they  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  are 
saved.  This  appears  to  be  the  clear  meaning  of  the  Apos- 
tle, and  therefore,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  where 
sin  abounded,  grace  has  much  more  abounded ;  that  the 
benefits  of  redemption  far  exceed  the  evils  of  the  fall ; 
that  the  number  of  the  saved  far  exceed  the  number  of 
the  lost."     {Hodges  Theology,  Vol.  I.  p.  26). 

The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  sometimes 
charged  with  teaching  a  doctrine  at  variance  with  this 
statement  of  Dr.  Hodge,  because  it  teaches  infant  salva- 
tion in  the  words — "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are 
regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who 
10* 


226  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

worketli  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth.  So  also 
are  all  other  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word."  {Con.  of  Faith,  ch. 
X.  sec.  3.)  The  existence  of  elect  infents,  it  is  said,  im- 
plies the  existence  of  non-elect  infants,  and  consequently 
of  a  class  who  are  lost. 

To  this  we  reply — (1)  Admitting  that  the  whole  hu- 
man family,  all  of  whom  were  once  in  the  condition  of 
infants,  are  divided  into  two  classes  of  the  elect  and  the 
non-elect,  and  that  the  existence  of  the  one  class  fairly 
implies  the  existence  of  the  other ;  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  because  some  elect  infants  die  in  infancy,  that  some 
non-elect  infants  must  die  in  infancy  also ;  and  it  is  of 
''infants  dying  in  infancy"  alone  that  this  article  speaks. 
It  may  be  the  purpose  of  God  in  whom  all  "live,  and 
move  and  have  their  being,"  that  all  the  non-elect  shall 
live  until  by  their  own  personal  sins  they  shall  have  de- 
served damnation; — "What  if  God  willing  to  show  his 
wrath  and  to  make  his  power  known,  endured  with  much 
long-suffering  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction." 
(Eom.  ix.  22.) 

2.  Dr.  Hodge,  as  quoted  above,  may  fairly  be  taken  as 
an  exponent  of  the  faith,  on  this  point,  of  those  who 
adopt  the  Westminster  Confession  at  the  present  day ; 
more  especially  as  he  declares — "  He  never  saw  a  Cal- 
vinistic  theologian  who  held  the  doctrine  that  only  a  part 
of  those  who  die  in  infancy  are  ssived."  {Hodge's  Theology/, 
vol.  iii.  p.  605.)  The  Scotch  "  Solemn  League  and  Cove- 
nant," drawn  up  in  1581,  by  John  Craig,  a  colleague  of 
John  Knox,  in  its  statement  of  particular  errors  with 
which  it  charges  the  Church  of  Eome,  specifically  pro- 
tests against  its  "cruel  judgment  against  infants  depart- 
ing without  the  sacraments."  {Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christen- 
dom, vol.  i.  p.  687.)  This  certainly  should  be  received  as 
sufficient  proof  of  the  faith  of  Presbyterians  in  the  days  of 
Craig  and  Knox;  and  may  we  not  fairly  add,  in  the 
absence  of  any  counter-proof,  of  the  faith  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly. 

Why  then,  it  may  be  asked,  do  they  use  the  language 
they   do   in   stating   the   doctrine   of    infant   salvation  ? 


Baptismal  Regeneration  Contradicted.  227 

There  are  two  doctrines  on  this  subject,  and  two  only, 
which  have  ever  been  received  by  those  who  beheve  in 
ori>^inal  sin.  All  hold  that  regeneration  is  necessary  to 
salvation.  The  Church  of  Rome  teaches  baptismal  re- 
generation;  that  is  — taking  the  doctrine  in  its  least 
objectionable  form— that  whilst  regeneration  is  properly 
the  work  of  the  Spirit,  yet  is  the  agency  of  the  iSpirit  so 
tied  to  the  sacrament  as  always  to  accompany  baptism 
properly  administered,  and  never  to  be  put  forth  without 
this  sacrament.  The  doctrine  of  Knox,  and  Craig,  and 
the  Westminster  Assembly  is,  that  there  is  no  such  bond 
between  regeneration  and  baptism ; — that  in  regeneration 
the  Spirit  "  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 
pleaseth,"  and  therefore,  in  the  case  of  infants,  and  "all 
other  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word,"  e.  g.,  deranged  per- 
sons and  idiots,  regeneration,  and  consequent  salvation  is 
dependent  upon  the  electing  love  of  God,  and  upon 
nothing  else.  Now,  it  was  to  express  this  truth,  and  to 
repudiate  the  Romish  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
and  especially  "the  cruel  judgment  against  infants  de- 
parting without  the  sacraments,"  that  the  Westminster 
Assembly  stated  their  faith  in  the  words — "  Elect  infants, 
dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ 
through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and 
how  he  pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons  who 
are  incapable  of  being  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
word."  And  this  purpose,  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the 
section  just  quoted  is  found,  not  in  ch.  iii.  of  "God's  Eter- 
nal Decrees,"  but  in  ch.  x.  of  "  Effectual  Calling,"  which 
treats  of  the  way  in  which  the  salvation  of  all  the  saved 
is  accomplished. 

§  72.  Baptismal  Regeneration  Contradicted  hy  Experience 
and  Observation. 

In  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  recorded  in  the 
third  chapter  of  John's  Gospel,  our  Lord  says  :  "  If  I  have 
told  vou  of  earthly  things  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall 
ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  of  heavenly  things  ?  "     (Jno.   iii. 


228  The  Doctrine  of  Baptbims. 

12.)  He  here  speaks  of  two  classes  of  truths  or  doctrines, 
— "earthly  things,"  such  as  the  doctrine  of  regeneration, 
of  which  he  had  just  been  speaking,  and  at  which  Nicode- 
mus  was  then  stumbling,  as  is  evident  from  his  words — 
"How  can  these  things  be?" — and  " heavenly  things," 
such  as  his  own  divinity,  salvation  through  his  death  on 
the  cross,  and  God's  love  to  man  as  the  true  source  of  that 
salvation,  of  which  things  he  goes  on  to  speak  in  the  sub- 
sequent portion  of  the  discourse. 

Why  does  our  Lord  call  regeneration  an  "earthly 
thing  ?  "  Because  it  is  a  change  which  is  wrought  in 
man  here  on  earth ;  and  though  a  spiritual  change,  it  af- 
fects the  whole  outer  life  of  man  so  as  to  become  known 
to  us  in  the  same  way  in  which  other  earthly  things  do. 
Paul  was  a  very  different  man  after  his  regeneration  from 
what  he  was  before.  When  born  again  he  not  only  be- 
lieved what  he  before  regarded  as  a  vile  imposture,  and 
loved  what  he  before  hated ;  but  he  preached  the  very 
Gospel  he  once  destroyed,  and  took  as  his  dearest  friends 
the  very  ones  he  before  persecuted  unto  strange  cities. 
Faith,  hope,  love,  the  results  of  regeneration,  are  Christian 
graces  which  cannot  be  hid ;  and  they  are  awakened  of 
God,  in  the  soul,  that  they  may  manifest  themselves  in 
the  life.  "  Men  do  not  light  a  candle  and  put  it  under  a 
bushel ;  " — and  if  men  are  not  guilty  of  such  folly,  surely 
God  will  not  be — "  but  on  a  candlestick ;  and  it  giveth 
light  to  ail  that  are  in  the  house.  Let  your  light  so  shine 
before  men  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  and  glo  • 
rify  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven."     (Matt.  v.  15,  16.) 

If  regeneration,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  is 
effected  in  baptism — if  he  who  was  born  "  a  child  of 
Adam,"  has  been  made,  by  baptism,  "  a  child  of  God,"  his 
subsequent  life  should  declare  the  change.  Yet,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  experience  and  observation  bear  testimony 
to  no  such  effect  as  this.  Infants  are  incapable  of  offer- 
ing any  obstacle  to  the  production  of  the  full  effects  of 
baptism ;  yet,  the  child  of  the  pious  Eomanist,  baptized 
with  all  possible  attention  to  even  the  ceremonial  of  bap- 
tism, when  he  reaches  the  age  at  which  the  character 
!  shows  itself  in  the  life,  is  no  better  than  the  child  of  the 


''Another  GospeV  229 

pious  Presbyterian,  who,  in  the  view  of  the  Komanist,  has 
received  an  exceedingly  irregular  baptism ;  or  the  child 
of  the  pious  Baptist,  who  has  never  received  the  sem- 
blance of  baptism.  So  the  child  himself  will  confess,  and 
universal  experience  testifies  to  the  truth  of  this  confes- 
sion. Numbers  of  those  regularly  baptized,  never,  in  life 
nor  in  death,  exhibit  any  evidence  of  regeneration. 

Is  baptism,  then,  in  the  case  of  infants,  without  effect? 
By  no  means.  It  places  the  child  within  the  pale  of  the 
visible  Church,  and  so  secures  to  him  an  interest  in  the 
care,  and  instructions,  and  prayers  of  the  Church.  It  is  a 
solemn  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  Christian  parent,  of 
his  obligation  to  "  bring  up  the  child  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord,"  (Eph.  vi.  4,)  and  so,  secures  a 
Christian  education  to  the  child,  in  so  far  as  a  solemn  vow 
can  secure  it ;  but  above  all,  it  places  a  child  in  covenant 
with  God,  as  the  "little  ones"  of  Israel  were  by  the  act 
of  their  parents,  (see  Deut.  xxix.  10-12)  and  so  secures  to 
him  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  on  the  conditions  of 
that  covenant.  And  the  result  of  all  this  we  see  in  the 
fact  that  where  God's  Church  is  established,  piety  is  seen 
to  descend  as  a  sort  of  inheritance ;  as  in  the  case  of  Tim- 
othy, of  whom  Paul  writes  :  "  The  unfeigned  faith  that  is 
in  thee,  dwelt  first  in  thy  grandmother  Lois,  and  thy  mo- 
ther Eunice."  (2  Tim.  i.  5.)  But  this  is  something  very 
different  fi'om  baptism  uniformly  effecting  regeneration  ex 
opere  operato. 

§  74.  "  Another  Gospel" 

In  so  far  as  any  work  or  act  of  the  sinner  is  concerned, 
the  Bible  everywhere  teaches  that  the  only  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation  is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  Our  Lord 
himself  says,  "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wil- 
derness, even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up ;  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  not  perish,  but  have  eter- 
nal life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  might  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  He  that  believeth  on  the 
Son  hath  everlasting  life;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son 
shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him." 


230  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms. 

(Jno.  iii.  11,  15,  16,  36.)  "Then  said  they  unto  Lim, 
what  shall  we  do  that  we  may  work  the  works  of  God? 
Jesus  answered  them,  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye 
believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent.  I  am  the  bread  of 
life;  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger,  and  he 
that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst.  This  is  the  will 
of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son, 
and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life ;  and  I 
will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  (Jno.  vi.  28,  29,  35, 
40.)  "  He  that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead, 
yet  shall  he  live :  And  whosoever  liveth,  and  believeth  in 
me,  shall  never  die"."  (Jno.  xi.  25,  26.)  Such  is  "  the 
Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,"  as  it  fell  from  the  lips  of  our 
Lord  himself. 

"  Alien  as  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is,  from 
the  whole  letter  and  spirit  of  Scripture ;  it  has  an  element 
of  popularity,  which  will  always  secure  numerous  votaries, 
until  grace  undeceives  them.  It  chimes  in  with  the  super- 
stition natural  to  a  soul  dead  in  sin.  It  is  delightful  to 
the  soul  which  hates  true  repentance,  and  loves  its  spiritu- 
al laziness,  and  abhors  thorough-going  heart  religion,  and 
yet  dreads  hell ;  to  be  taught  that  it  can  be  equipped  for 
heaven,  without  these  arduous  means,  by  an  easy  piece  of 
ecclesiastical  legerdemain."  '  {Dabneys  Theology,  p.  743.) 

The  fatal  error  in  the  religion  of  the  Pharisees  in  our. 
Lord's  day,  was  just  the  doctrine  of  "  sacramental  grace; " 
"salvation  by  the  deeds  of  the  law," — not  the  moral,  but 
the  ceremonial  law ; — as  Paul  styles  it  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians.  Of  this  it  is,  he  writes — "  I  marvel  that  ye 
are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the 
grace  of  Christ,  unto  another  gospel :  which  is  not  another; 
but  there  be  some  that  trouble  you,  and  would  pervert  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we 
have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  As  we  said 
before,  so  say  I  now  again.  If  any  man  preach  any  other 
gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be 
accursed."  (Gal.  i.  6-9.) 


SCRIPTURAL  INDEX 

TO  THE 

DOCTRINE  OF  BAPTISMS. 


OLD  TESTAMENT. 

X,  13-16, 

2  '^3 

"  35-40. 

2  21 

Genesis,  xvii.  4-8,  12, 

^ 

50 

XI.  30, 

2  29 

Deuteronomy,  xxx.  6, 

§ 

47 

XVI.  15,  16. 

2  46 

2  Kings,  V.  14, 

3 

14 

Isaiah,  xii.  7, 

^ 

17 

ImU. 

APOCBTPHi 

III.  3, 

"  7,  8,  12, 

2  29 

2  29 

Ecclesiasticus,  xxxiv. 

25, 

2 

15 

"  16, 

2  24 

Judith,  xii.  7, 

2 

16 

"  21  22 
VII.  29730. 
XI.  37,  38, 

\    30 
2  29 
2  18 

KEW   TESTAMENT. 

XII.  49,  50, 

2  21 

XVIII.  15-17. 

2  53 

Matthew. 

XX.  4, 
XXIV.  47-49, 

2  29 
2  46 

III.  1-6, 

1 

38 

"     7,  8,  11, 

|24, 

1 

29 

"     13-17, 

2  30, 

^ 

38 

John. 

XIX.  13-15, 

2 

53 

XX.  20-23, 

2 

21 

I.  19-25, 

2    6 

XXI.  25, 

29 

"  26, 

2  24 

XXVIII.  19,  20, 

246. 

^ 

48 

"  32,  33, 
"  33, 

"  28, 

2  30 

•     2  24 

2  38 

Mark. 

III.  3-7, 
'■    22-30, 

1  64 

2  5 

I.  4-10, 

229, 

2 

38 

"    23, 

2  39 

"  9-11, 

2 

30 

IV.  1,  2, 

2     5 

"  8, 

2 

24 

X.  40, 

2  38 

VII.  1-4, 

2 

18 

XXI.  15. 

2  54 

231 


232 


Scriptural  Index. 


Acts. 

1.4-8, 

"  22, 

II.  1-4, 
"  16-18, 
"  32,  33, 
"  38^1, 
"41, 

III.  24-26, 

VIII.  12,  13,  16, 
"     36-39, 

IX.  17-18, 

X.  37, 
'•44-48, 

XI.  15,  16, 
XIII.  24, 
XVI.  14.  15, 

"    32^-34, 

XVIII.  8, 

"       24-26, 

XIX.  1-7. 

XXII.  12-16,      I  42, 


2  41,  ?55, 


24, 


Romans. 


n.  28.  29, 

III.  1,  2, 

IV.  11, 

"  n  17, 

V.  12-14, 

VI.  1  -6. 
IX.  8, 
XI,  18-24. 


I  24 

24,  I  29 

?  24 

I  24 

§  21 

?  68 

I  31 

I  55 

§  31 

§  40 

I  42 

I  29 

I  43 

I  24 

?  29 

I  01 

2  44,  I  61 

1  31 

2  29 
I  29 

?  47,  2  67 


?  47 
§  48 
I  47 
?  50 
?  69 
§  35 
§  50 
I  51 


2  34, 


1  Corinthians. 


I.  13-17, 
VII.  12-14, 
X.  1,  2, 
XII.  12.  13, 

XV.  29, 


1  61 
§  60 

2  22 
25,  §  47 

2  37 


III.  7-9, 
"  26-29 


Galatians. 


Uphesians. 


2  50 
2  47 


1. 1, 

2  58 

II.  11-14, 

2  51 

"  19-22, 

2  51 

V.  25-27, 

i  65 

IV.  3-6. 

i  27 
1  58 

V.  1-3. 

CoZossians. 

I.  1,  2, 

2  58 

II.  10-12, 

2  34,  §  36 

"  11, 

2  47 

"  12, 

2  47 

III.  0, 

§  258 

1.6, 
III.  5, 


VI.  1,  2, 
IX.  9,  10, 


Titus. 


Hebrews. 


1  Peter. 


III.  18-22, 


2  20 
§  19 


I  23 


THE 

DOCTRINE 


LORD'S    SUPPER, 


SET  FORTH  IN  THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 

TO    WHICH    IS    ADDED    AN    EXAMINATION    OF   THE  ROMISH   SACRAMENTS  OF 

CONFIRMATION,    PENANCE,    EXTREME   UNCTION, 

MATRIMONY   AND   ORDERS. 


CONTENTS, 


PRELIMIXA R  Y  S TA  TEMENT. 


THE   LORD'S   SUPPER. 

CHAPTER  I. 
l\.  The  several  accounts  of  the  institution  of  the  Sacrament.    §2.  The  time  of 
its  institution.    §3.  The  names  given  it  in  Scripture.    J  4.  A  summary  view  of 
its  nature 1 

CHAriER  II. 
The  Lords  Supper  a  Commemorative  Rite. 
la.  Commemorative  Rites.     §G.  The  Rite  Commemorative  of  our  Lord's  Death. 
?7.  The  Need  of  this  Commemoration.      §8.  The   Effect  of  this  Commemo- 
ration        9 

CHAPTER  III. 

Tlie  Lord's  Supper  a  Symholie  Rite. 

§9.  Sj-mbolic  Rites.     §10.  The  Lord's  death  sacrificial.    1 11.  Christ  "the  hread 

of  life."    §12.  This  truth  as  expressed  in  Protestant  Confessions 17 

CHAPTER    IV. 

The  Lords  Supper  a  Covenanting  Rite. 

gl3.  The  New  Testament  (diatheca).    ?14.  The  Covenant  with  Abraham.  Gen.  xv. 

8-l«.  gl5.  Tlie  Covenant  at  Sinai,  Ex.  xxiv.  3-8.  gl6.  "The  salt  of  the  Covenant 

of  thy  God."    ^^7   "Vain  Oblations."    §18.  Relation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to 

Old  Testament  sacrifices.     §19.  The  New  Covenant,  Heb.  viii.  8-12 27 

CH.\PTER  V. 

The  Lords  Supper  a  Eurharistie  Rite. 

§■20.  Origin  of  the  name  Eucharist.    §21.  Development  of  Sacrificial  Worship  in 

Moses'  Law.    §22.  The  Passover  as  observed  in  our  Lord's  day.    §23.  The  New_ 

ft  better  Covenant  than  the  Ol  1 3a 


Contents. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Lords  Supper  a  Communion. 

§24.  1  Cor.  X.  16-21.    §25.  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Communion.     §20.  John 

xiii.  34,  35.  Tlie  New  Commandment.    §  27.  John  xvii.  20,  21.  Christian  Unity. 

§28.  The  Lord's  Sapper  adapted  to  exhibit  this  Unity 61 

CHAPTER  A^I. 
Cdo&e   Communion. 

I  29.  Close  Communion  defined.  §30.  Does  Sacramental  Communion  with  a 
Church  involve  approval  of  its  error.s?  §31.  Is  the  Communion  of  the  Lord's 
Sapper  that  of  a  particular  Church?  §32.  Dous  Baptism  necessarily  precede 
the  Lord's  Supper?  §33.  2  Thess.  iii.  G-15.  "  Walking  disorderly."  §31.  Prac- 
tical views 63 


\hx\  Irrnnlr. 

THE  MASS. 

CHAPTER   I. 

Transuhdantiation. 

§35.  Transubstantiation  defined.  §30.  Transubstantiation  irreconcilable  with  the 
testimony  of  the  Benses  §37.  Lord  Buckingham  and  the  Priest.  §3S.  Thetes- 
mony  of  the  senses,  and  not  "  reason  and  common  sense."  §39.  The  test  of 
Chemical  Analysis.  §40.  The  senses  sometimes  deceive  us.  §41.  Transubstan- 
tiation not  a  miracle.  §42.  God's  estimate  of  the  testimony  of  the  senses. 
Conclusions 91 

CHAPTER  II. 
Our  Lords  Discourse  at  Capernaum,  John  vi. 
§  43.  Introductory  words.  Vs.  1-34.  §  44.  Jesua  "  the  bread  of  life."  Vs.  35-47.  g  45. 
Eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  Man.  Vs  48-59.  §40.  The 
effect  of  this  discourse  upon  His  hearers.  Vs.  60-69.  §  47.  Cardinal  Wiseman  on 
"ths  established  and  conventional  signification  of '  eating  my  flesh.'"  §48.  Car- 
dinal Wiseman  on  the  Jews'  cavils.  §49.  Is  John  vi.  51-58  a  promise  of  the 
Lord's  Supper 1"' 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Words  of  Institution. 

g  .50.  The  Words  of  Institution.    §51.  How  would  the  Apostles  understand  the 

words  of  Institution?    §52.  Does  this  method  of  interpretation  invalidate  the 

Scripture  testimony  to  the  Trinity  ?    ?  53.   The  elements  called  bread  and  wine 

after  consecration ■ ^^^ 


Contents.  V 

CHAPTER   IV. 

PauVs  reproof  of  disorders  in  the  Church  of  Corinth. 

2.13.  The  nature  of  the  disorders  charged?    1  Cor.  xi  17-22.    g54.   Eating  and 

drinking  unwortliily.  ¥.27.    §5o.  Eating  and  drinking  damnation  (judgment) 

to  themselves.  Vs.  28-31.    gr>6.  Romisli  views  of  vs.  27-29.     g.07.   Romisli  views 

of  V.  28 150 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Eeal  Presence. 

g58.  The  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  defined.    g59.  Tlie  waj'  in  which  Transub- 

stantiation  and  the  Real  Presence  are  accomplished.    §G0.  Examination  of  the 

Scripture  proofs  of  the  Real  Presence 163 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Communion  under  one  species. 

?ei.  Statement  of  the  doctrine.  ? 62.  History  of  this  doctrine.    ? 63.  Doctrine  of 

Scripture.  §61.  Rome's  appeal  to  Scripture.  §  6fi.  1  Cor.  xi.  27 172 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Worship  of  the  Host. 

?66.  The  worship  of  the  Host.  §67.  Dr.  Milner's  defence.  ?G8.  The  Romanist  can 

never  be  certain  that  his  adoration  of  the  Host  is  not  idolatry,    g  69.  Modern 

and  Ancient  Idolatry.    §70.  The  Real  Presence  not  a  doctrine  of  the  primitive 

Church 186 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Priesthood  under  the  New  Testament. 
I  71.  The  Priests  of  the  Church  of  Rome.    §72.  Did  Christ  institute  a  priesthood 
in  hi.-*  Church?  §73.  Presbuteros  translated  Priest.    §74.  The  priesthood  recog- 
nized in  the  New  Testament.    §75.  An  "external  priesthood  "  not  recognized 
in  the  New  Testament 199 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

§76.  The  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  §77.  Ps.  ex.  4,  Heb.  vii.  17.  §78.  Malachi  i.  11. 
§79.  Heb.  vii.  12.  §80.  Heb.  xiii.  10.  §81.  Acts  xiii.  2.  §82.  Christian  sacrifices 
recognized  in  the  New  Testament.  §83.  Christ's  sacrifice  on  Calvary  the  one 
perfect  propitiatory  sacrifice 211 

CHAPTER   X. 

The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  {continued). 

§81.  The  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  defined.  §8.^).  Tlie  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  propitiatory. 

§86.  The  Mass  an  unbloody  sacrifice.    §87.  The  propitiatory  worth  of  the  Mass 

practically  illustrated.  §88.  Masses  in  honor  of  V.ic  Saints 227 


vi  Contents. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Consuhstantiation. 

§89.  Consubstantiation  defined.    g90.  Wherein  Consubstantiation  and  Transub- 
stantiation  differ.  ?9l.  Objections  to  the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation 240 


f  art  (KliirL 


THE  FIVE  ADDITIONAL  SACRAMENTS  OF  THE  CHURCH 
OF  ROME. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Co  nfi  rmation. 

g 92.  Confirmation  defined.    ? 93.  Acts  viii.  14-19,  xix.  1-7.    ?04.  Heb.  vi.  1,  2.    §95. 

Confirmation  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 251 

CHAPTER  II. 

Renance. 

§96.  Penance  defined.  §97.  Contrition.  §98.  Confession.  §99.  Jamesv.  16;2 
Cor.  V.  18-21 ;  1  John  i.  9, 10.  §  100.  Satisfaction.  §101.  Absolution.  §102.  John 
xx.22,23.    §  103.  Acts  ii.  38 263 

CHAPTER    III. 

Matrimony. 

§104.  Matrimony  a  Sacrament.  §10.5.  The  state  of  Celibacy  better  than  that  of 
Marriage.  §106.  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy.  §107.  Inconsistency  of  Romish  doc- 
trine   281 

CHAPTER   IV. 

Extreme    Unction. 

§  108.  Kxtreme  Unction  defined     §109.  James  v.  14-18 292 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Sacrament  of  Orders. 

gllO.  The  Sacrament  of  Orders  defined.    §111.   Matt.  xvi.  19,  and  xviii.  15-19. 

§112. 1  Tim.  iv.  14,  and  II  Tim.  i.  6 298 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Romish  Sacraments. 
§113.  The  term  Sacrament  defined.    §114.  The  Seven  Sacraments.    §115.  The 
scheme  of  salvation  through  the  Sacraments  a  failure,  its  advocates  being 
judges 304 


PART  I. 


THE   LORD'S  SUPPER. 


PRELIMINARY   STATEMENT. 


In  Part  I.  of  the  following  treatise,  the  author  has  en- 
deavored to  set  forth  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper  just 
as  it  is  presented  in  Scripture.  This  has  been  done  with 
the  greater  care,  because  Protestants  too  often  look  upon 
this  Sacrament  as  little  more  than  a  commemorative  rite, 
in  which  the  memorials  of  Christ's  death  are  so  ordered 
as  to  teach  by  symbol  certain  great  truths  of  our  holy 
religion  ;  whilst  Eomanists,  in  their  doctrine  of  *'  the 
mass,"  have  lost  almost  all  trace  of  the  original  character 
of  the  ordinance.  In  the  Scriptures,  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  presented  as,  (1)  A  commemorative  rite,  (2)  A  rite  of 
symbolic  instruction,  (3)  A  covenanting  rite,  (4)  A  Eu- 
charist, and  (5)  A  communion,  and  in  each  of  these  char- 
acters it  has  received  particular  consideration.  In  con- 
nection with  the  last  mentioned,  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a 
communion,  the  question  of  "  close  "  and  "  open  "  com- 
munion is  discussed,  as  a  difference  on  this  point  is  of  long 
standing  in  the  Church,  and  any  examination  of  this  Sacra- 
ment would  be  incomplete  without  such  discussion. 

In  Part  II.  "  the  Mass,"  the  teachings  of  the  Church  of 
Piome  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  examined  at 
length.     In  this  examination,  the  author  has  endeavored — 

1.  By  quotations  from  the  Standards  of  the  Church  of 
Ptome,  especially  from  "  The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the 


X  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper, 

Council  of  Trent,"  the  Council  which  settled,  finally,  the 
doctrine  of  that  Church  on  the  subject  of  the  Sacraments, 
and  "  The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  a  work 
prepared  by  order  of  the  Council,  and  sanctioned  and  pub- 
lished by  Pope  Pius  V.  for  the  instruction  of  Komish 
Priests  in  their  interpretation  of  "  The  Canons  and  De- 
crees," to  enable  the  reader  to  judge  for  himself  respecting 
the  fairness  of  the  representations  of  Eomish  doctrine  he 
has  given. 

2.  By  quotations  from  the  writings  of  leading  Koman- 
ists  of  the  present  day, — the  works  which  have  recently 
been  published  or  republished  in  this  country, — to  put 
the  reader  in  possession  of  the  arguments  by  which  the 
faith  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  defended  in  this  our  day. 
Like  all  other  controversies  of  long  standing,  this  has 
changed  its  grounds  in  many  important  particulars,  and 
so,  the  treatises  which  were  all-sufficient  a  century  ago, 
do  not  fully  meet  the  necessities  of  our  times.  These 
quotations,  both  those  from  the  standards,  and  those  from 
the  leading  modern  writers  of  the  Church  of  Eome,  have 
been  carefully  made ;  none  of  them  at  second-hand,  but 
in  every  instance  from  the  originals ;  and  none  of  them 
are  quotations  so  garbled  as  to  change  or  misrepresent  the 
meaning  of  their  authors.  That  the  reader  may  be  able 
easily  to  verify  our  quotations,  we  append  to  this  Pre- 
liminary Statement  a  list  of  the  works  quoted,  carefully 
stating  the  editions  from  which  the  quotations  have  been 
made. 

3.  To  give  a  careful  examination  of  every  passage  of 
Scripture,  cited  by  the  standards,  or  adduced  by  Romish 
writers  in  the  works  quoted,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Mass.  As  the  Council  of  Trent  teaches  "  that  the 
Sacraments  of  the  New  Law  were  all  instituted  by  Jesus 


Fi'diniiiiary  Stataiicnt.  xi 

Christ,  our  Lord,"  there  is  a  special  propriety  in  bringing 
every  question  respecting  them  to  the  test  of  Scripture ; 
receivino-  reverently  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach,  and  re- 
jecting all  else. 

The  gospel  of  the  Cliurch  of  Konie  is  a  gospel  of  salva- 
tion by  the  Sacraments,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Mass  is 
the  living  heart  of  Romish  religion.  On  this  ponit,  IVo- 
testant  ministers  who  have  had  occasion  to  labor  among 
Romanists,  and  Romanists  themselves  agree. 

Seymour,  in  his  "  Evenings  with  the  Romanists,"  writes, 
— "  There  are  few  subjects  at  issue  between  the  Church  of 
Rome  and  ourselves,  upon  which  I  have  been  more  fre- 
quently engaged  in  discussion,  than  on  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass.  Its  own  innate  importance,  arising  out  of  the 
principles  it  involves — the  great  value  placed  upon  it  by  its 
votaries — its  being  regarded  as  their  '  morning  and  even- 
ing sacrifice,'  the  greatest  and  highest  of  all  their  rites, 
and  the  most  efficacious,  and  precious,  and  important  of 
all  the  mysteries  of  their  faith,  always  invests  its  discus- 
sion with  a  prominence  and  an  interest  peculiarly  its  own. 
The  most  essential  and  characteristic  elements  of  Roman- 
ism are  all  interwreathed  and  involved  in  it.  And  all  the 
grandest  truths  of  a  Protestant  Christianity  are  drawn 
out  and  engaged  against  it.  It  has  thus  naturally  become 
in  my  intercourse  with  Romanists,  a  constant  subject  of 
controversial  as  well  as  of  amicable  conversation."  (p. 
273.) 

And  Nampon,  in  his  "Catholic  Doctrine,"  writes, — 
"  All  the  splendor  and  dignity  of  our  worship,  the  mag- 
nificence of  its  temples,  the  beauty  and  variety  of  its  cere- 
monies, the  choice  works  which  it  unceasingly  demands  from 
architecture,  sculpture,  painting,  music,  poetry,  eloquence, 
and  g,ll  the  arts ;  those  efforts  so  prodigious  in  the  coun 


xii  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

tries  and  ages  of  faith,  efforts  to  raise  up  to  the  very 
clouds  the  dwelhng  of  God  on  earth,  to  surround  the  Eu- 
charistic  victim  with  incense,  hymns  and  flowers ;  all  these 
monuments  of  a  faith  and  love  which  never  says,  That  is 
enough,  have  their  foundation  in  a  belief  in  the  Eeal  Pres- 
ence and  in  the  sacrifice  accomplished  upon  our  altars. 
We  pray,  we  prostrate  ourselves,  we  adore,  we  chant,  bo- 
cause  He  is  there !  It  is  because  He  is  there  that  thj 
lamp  burns,  the  clouds  of  incense  rise,  the  organ  malied 
its  thousand  voices  heard.  His  j)resence  tolerates  not  in 
His  temple  anything  profane.  His  sacrifice  calls  for  the 
pomp,  the  majesty,  the  gravity  of  the  most  imposing  cere- 
monies. To  the  accents  of  the  deacon  who  proclaims  the 
Gospel,  to  the  solemn  tones  of  the  Preface,  and  the  affect- 
ing chaunt  of  the  Pater,  the  assembly  can  only  reply  by 
unanimous  and  prolonged  acclamations."  "  Is  it  then" — 
asks  M.  Vinet, —  "is  it  then  solely  owing  to  the  Eeal 
Presence  that  the  Catholic  Temples  are  real  Temples? 
Yes,  assuredly ;  .  .  .  and  do  what  you  will,  your  Protes- 
tant chapels  will  never  be  more  than  lecture-rooms."  {pp. 
422,  423.) 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  so  large  a  portion  of  the  pres- 
ent work  is  devoted  to  an  examination  of  the  doctrine  of 
"  The  Mass." 

Part  III.  is  occupied  with  an  examination  of  the  five 
remaining  sacraments  of  the  Church  of  Eome,  viz.:  (1) 
Confirmation,  (2)  Matrimony,  (3)  Extreme  Unction,  (4) 
Penance,  and  (5)  Orders.  This  examination  is  briefer  than 
it  otherwise  would  have  been,  because  many  of  the  points 
involved,  and  many  of  the  passages  of  Scripture  appealed 
to,  had  already  been  examined  in  our  discussion  of  the 
Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
author  has  aimed,  however,  to  make  the  discussion  full 


Prdiiniiiary  Statcinciit.  xiii 

enough  to  give  the  reader  a  disiiuct  knowledge  of  the 
nature  of  these  lloniish  Saeraments,  and  the  Scripture 
proof  upon  which  they  rest. 

ROMISH    WOKKS    QUOTED    IN    THIS   TREATISE. 

"The  Canons  and  Dogmatic  Decrees  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,"  as  contained  in  "SchafF's  Creeds  of  Christendom." 
Vol.  II.     N.  York,  1877. 

"  The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent."  New  York, 
Catholic  Publication  Society. 

"The  Douay  Bible,  with  annotations,  revised  and 
corrected  according  to  the  Clementine  edition."  Philadel- 
phia, 1824.     Published  by  E.  Cummiskey." 

"  Missale  Eomanum."  The  copy  from  which  the  quo- 
tations are  made  had  a  part  of  the  title  page  missing,  but 
had  been  used  for  years  in  conducting  the  worship  of  a 
Catholic  Church  in  Virginia. 

"Short  Catechism  of  the  Christian  Doctrine  on  the 
basis  adopted  by  the  First  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore. 
By  the  Right  Rev.  Augustin  Verot,  Bishop  of  St.  Au- 
gustine, Baltimore.     1879." 

"  The  Real  Presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  blessed  Eucliarist,  proved  from  Scrip- 
ture, in  eight  lectures,  delivered  in  the  English  College, 
Ptome,  by  Cardinal  "Wiseman.     Baltimore,  1852." 

"  Catholic  Doctrine  as  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent," 
by  the  Rev.  A.  Nampon,  S.  J.  Approved  by  the  Arch- 
bishops of  Baltimore,  New  York  and  Cincinnati.  Phila- 
delphia, 1870. 

"The  Sincere  Christian  instructed  in  the  Faith  of  Christ 
from  the  written  word,"  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hay,  No. 
2  of  Cummiskey 's  Catholic  Library.     Philadelphia. 

"The  End  of  Religious  Controversy,  by  the  Right  Rev. 


xiv  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

John  Milnor,  D.D.  Marpliy's  Stereotype  Edition.  Bal- 
timore." 

"A  Treatise  on  Baptism,  also  a  treatise  on  Confirma- 
tion, by  Francis  Patrick  Kenrick,  Archbishop  of  Balti- 
more."    1852. 

"The  Faith  of  our  Fathers."  By  the  Most  Eeverend 
James  Gibbons,  D.D.,  Archbishop  of  Baltimore.  Eleventh 
Edition.     Baltimore,  John  Murphy  &  Co.     1879. 


THE   LORD'S  SUPPER. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE   INSTITUTION   OF   THE   LORD's   SUPPER. 

g  1.  The  several  accounts  of  its  institution.    g2.  The  time  of  its  institution.    §3. 
The  names  given  it  in  Scripture,    g  4.  A  summary  view  of  its  nature. 

§  1.   The  several  accounts  of  its  Institution. 

Of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  we  have  four 
separate  accounts  in  the  Scriptures ;  one  by  each  of  the 
three  evangelists,  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  one  by 
the  x^postle  PauL 

Matthew,  as  one  of  "  the  twelve,"  was  present  at  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Supper.  His  account,  therefore,  is  that  of 
an  eye-witness  of  the  transaction.  "  It  was  universally 
believed  in  the  ancient  church,  that  Mark's  Gospel  was 
written  under  the  influence,  and  almost  by  the  dictation  of 
Peter."  {Alfoi'd).  If  this  be  so,  in  his  account  we  have  the 
testimony,  at  second  hand,  of  another  eye-witness  of  the 
transaction.  Luke  says  of  his  Gospel,  that  he  had  therein 
"  set  forth  in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things  which  are 
most  surely  believed  among  us;  even  as  they  delivered 
them  unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses, 
and  ministers  of  the  Word."  (Luke  i.  1,  2.)  Paul  intro- 
duces his  account  with  the  words,  "  I  have  received  of  the 
Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you."  (1  Cor.  xi.  23.) 
"In  using  the  words  'I  have  received  of  the  Lord,'  the 
whole  context  shows  that  Paul  intended  to  claim  for  his 
narrative  the  direct  authority  of  the  Lord  himself.     As 

1 


2  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

witli  regard  to  his  doctrines  generally,  so  with  regard  to 
the  institution  and  design  of  this  ordinance,  he  disclaims  all 
indebtedness  to  tradition,  or  to  the  instructions  of  men, 
and  asserts  the  fact  of  a  direct  revelation  to  himself." 
[Hodges  Com.  in  loo.)  From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  these 
four  accounts  are  not  only  separate,  but  independent  also. 
All  were  written  under  inspiration  of  God,  and  therefore 
they  must  all  be  true  accounts  of  the  transaction.  But 
written  as  they  were,  by  different  men,  at  different  times, 
and  under  different  circumstances,  they  present  just  such 
differences — not  discrepancies — as  we  would  naturally  ex- 
pect. "  Different  writers,  of  course,  with  perfect  accuracy, 
represent  different  details  of  the  same  occurrence,  or  difl'er- 
ent  views  of  the  same  fact,  and  different  elements  and  re- 
lations of  the  same  great  doctrine.  Instead  of  this  course 
proving  inconsistency,  it  is  precisely  God's  plan  for  bring- 
ing the  whole  truth  most  fully  and  clearly  to  our  know- 
ledge." {A.  Hodges  Outlines  of  Theology, p.  77.)  The  four 
Gospels  are  illustrations  of  this  truth  throughout. 

In  the  Gospel  according  to  John  there  is  no  record  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  gospel  was  evidently 
written  some  years  later  than  the  other  three,  and  with  the 
purpose,  not  of  repeatingthe  record  contained  in  them,  but  of 
supplementing  that  record.  Hence,  in  this  matter  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  whilst  John  gives  us  no  account  of  its  institu- 
tion, he  alone  gives  us  our  Lord's  discourse  addressed  to  his 
disciples,  as  they  sat  at  the  supper  table,  to  comfort  them, 
in  prospect  of  his  departure,  and  to  prepare  them  for  the 
new  order  of  things  which  his  death  would  introduce;  and 
our  Lord's  wondrous  prayer  for  them,  offered  just  before 
quitting  the  upper  chamber  in  which  the  supper  had  been 
eaten.  (See  John  ch.  xiv.-xvii.)  He  gives  no  account  of 
the  institution  of  the  Supper,  because  "he  evidently  assumes 
its  being  sufficiently  known  by  means  of  the  three  other 
Evangelists,  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
the  long  established  usages  of  the  churches.  Nevertheless, 
he  has  given  us  elsewhere  in  his  Gospel,  in  a  very  detailed 
manner,  the  essential  features  of  the  ordinance  in  its  simple 
and  sublime  emblematic  signification.  The  whole  of  that 
discourse  delivered  by  Jesus,  in  which  he  declares  that  he 


The  Insiiiution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  3 

himself  is  '  the  bread  of  life,'  and  that  '  whosoever  eateth 
his  flesh,  and  drinketh  his  blood,  hath  eternal  Hfe,'  (see 
John  vi.)  is  it  not  in  oral  words  what  the  Lord's  Supper 
represents  to,  and  gives  to  us,  in  visible  action  ?  "  {Da 
Castas  Four  Witnesses,  p.  353.) 

§  2.   The  Time  of  its  Institution. 

Luke's  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
as  follows,  viz. :  "  And  when  the  hour  was  come,  he  sat 
down,  and  the  twelve  apostles  with  him.  And  he  said 
unto  them,  With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  passover 
with  you  before  I  suffer :  For  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not  any 
more  eat  thereof,  until  it  be  fulfilled  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  said, 
Take  this  and  divide  it  among  yourselves  :  For  I  say  unto 
you,  I  will  not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  the 
kingdom  of  God  shall  come.  And  he  took  bread  and  gave 
thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  unto  them,  saying.  This  is 
my  body  which  is  given  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.  Likewise  also  the  cup  after  supper,  saying.  This 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for 
you."  {Licke  xxii.  14-20.  See  also  Matt.  xxvi.  26-30 ;  Mark 
xiv.  22-2G.) 

From  this  account  it  appears,  that  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  followed  immediately  upon  the  celebration 
of  the  Passover, — without  rising  from  the  table, — the  bread 
and  wine  used  on  the  occasion  being  that  which  remained 
from  the  Paschal  Supper.  This  would  naturally  suggest  a 
very  intimate  relation  between  the  two  ordinances,  and 
Paul's  words  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  con- 
firms the  suggestion.  "  Purge  out  therefore  the  old 
leaven,  that  ye  may  be  a  new  lump,  as  ye  are  unleavened. 
For  even  Christ  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us  :  There- 
fore let  us  keep  the  feast,  not  with  old  leaven,  neither 
with  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness ;  but  with  the 
unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth."  (2  Cor.  v. 
7,8.) 

In  what  does  this  intimate  relation  consist  ?  Without 
attempting  at  the  present  time,  a  full  examination  of  this 


4  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Sapper. 

subject,  since  it  can  better  be  discussed  in  another  place, 
it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  remark,  that 
they  are  both  sacraments,  and  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
under  the  New  Testament  dispensation  takes  the  place  of 
the  Paschal  Supper  under  the  Old. 

"  As  to  the  number  of  sacraments  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  Calvinistic  divines  are  not  agreed. 
Some  seem  inclined  to  regard  any  and  every  symbolic 
rite  there  found  as  a  sacrament.  Others,  far  more  cor- 
rectly, as  I  conceive,  limit  them  to  two;  circumcision 
and  the  passover.  The  claim  of  these  two  to  be  sacra- 
ments need  hardly  be  much  argued,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not 
disputed.  They  are  symbols  instituted  of  God ;  they 
have  each  their  elements,  bearing  a  significant  relation  to 
the  grace  represented ;  the  thing  represented  was  in 
each  case  federal,  so  that  they  not  only  signified,  but 
sealed  or  pledged  the  benefits  of  a  covenant.  But  the 
various  typical  sacrifices  of  the  Hebrews  cannot  be  pro- 
perly regarded  as  sacraments,  for  the  very  reason  that 
they  were  mere  types.  The  Passover  also  was  a  type,  in 
that  it  was  a  sacrifice  proper,  but  it  was  also  more  than  a 
type,  a  commemorative  and  seahng  ordinance."  {Dah- 
neys  Theology,  pp.  734,  5.) 

As  we  compare  the  two  sacraments  under  the  New 
Testament  dispensation  with  the  two  corresponding  ones 
under  the  Old,  we  cannot  but  notice  the  similarity  in  the 
change,  made  by  our  Lord  in  each.  Circumcision  was  a 
bloody  rite  of  purification,  and  pointed  to  the  coming  of 
"a  blessed  and  blessed-making  seed."  For  this,  our 
Lord  substitutes  the  simpler  form  of  purification,  purifi- 
cation by  water,  a  form  which  had  been  in  use,  side  by 
side  with  circumcision,  from  the  very  days  of  Abraham, 
but  without  any  proper  sacramental  character  until  it 
received  it  at  the  lips  of  our  Lord  himself.  So,  in  the 
Passover;  the  bloody  sacrifice,  the  lamb  slain  and  eaten, 
disappears.  The  great  event  foreshadowed  in  the  bloody 
sacrifice  has  been  accomplished,  even  to  the  minute  par- 
ticular— "a  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  broken."  (Ex.  xii. 
46 ;  John  xix.  36.)  Henceforth  the  simplest  form  of  sacri- 
fice, the  meat-ofiering,  which  had  long  been  in  use  side  by 


Tlcc  Institution  of  the  Lord' a  Supper.  5 

side  with  the  bloody  rite,  takes  its  place,  and  serves  sub- 
stantially the  same  purpose  in  the  Church  under  the  New 
Testament  dispensation  which  the  other  did  under  the 
Old. 

§  3.   The  Names  given  it  in  Scnpture. 

"Breaking  of  bread."  "  And  they  continued  steadfastly 
in  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking 
of  bread,  and  in  prayers.  .  .  .  And  they  continuing  daily 
with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  fr"om 
house  to  house,  (in  the  house,  or  at  home — Alexander) 
did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart." 
Acts  ii.  42,  46. 

"And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  disci- 
ples came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto 
them,  ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow."  Acts  xx.  7. 

In  his  exposition  of  Acts  ii.  46,  Alexander  writes — 
"  Breaking  bread  at  home,  or  in  private  houses,  exclusive- 
ly, denotes  neither  social  repasts  nor  sacramental  services, 
but  both,  in  that  intimate  conjunction,  which  was  one  of 
the  characteristic  features  of  the  infant  Church,  but  which 
can  no  more  be  revived  by  us,  than  the  innocent  simplicity 
of  childhood,  or  the  habits  of  a  father's  house,  can  be 
continued  in  mature  age  and  in  distant  homes.  That  the 
reference  to  the  eucharist  is  at  least  not  exclusive,  may  be 
seen  from  the  ensuing  phrase,  'they  took  their  meat,'  or 
more  exactly,  'they partook  of  7iourishment.' "  (Alexander 
on  Acts.) 

This  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  breaking 
bread"  is  confirmed  by  Acts  vi.  1,  2.  "And  in  those  days, 
when  the  number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied,  there 
arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the  HebrcAvs, 
because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  minis- 
trations. Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  dis- 
ciples unto  them,  and  said.  It  is  not  reason  that  we  should 
leave  the  word  of  God,  and  serve  tables."  "  The  daily 
ministrations,"  and  "  serving  tables  "  here  spoken  of  un- 
questionably refers  to  the  state  of  things  described  in 
Acts  ii.  44-47,  i.  e.,  to  the  provision  and  distribution  of 
food  among  the  disciples,  at  the  time  "  they  had  all  things 


6  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper 

common."  In  the  phrase  serving  tables,  as  Alexander 
remarks,  "there  is  no  reference  to  \sdiat  we  call  commu- 
nion tables,  except  so  far  as  sacramental  and  charitable 
distributions  were  connected  in  practice."  [Alexander  on 
Acts.) 

From  all  this  it  will  be  seen,  that  whilst  the  breaking 
of  bread  spoken  of  in  Scripture,  probably  included  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  included  a  great  deal  more,  and  there- 
fore, cannot  be  considered,  properly,  a  distinctive  name  of 
the  ordinance. 

"The  Communion."  "The  cup  of  blessing  which  we 
bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ? 
The  Wead  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
body  of  Christ?  .  .  .  the  things  which  the  Gentiles 
sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God;  and  I 
would  not  that  ye  should  have  fellowship  (communion) 
with  devils."     1  Cor.  x.  16,  20. 

That  the  name  of  "  the  Communion  "  was  given  to  this 
rite  at  a  very  early  day  cannot  be  doubted.  That  the 
language  of  the  apostle,  quoted  above ;  or  rather,  the 
truth  to  which  that  language  gives  expression,  gave  rise 
to  this  designation  of  the  rite  as  "the  Communion,"  is  we 
think  equally  clear  : — but  that  Paul  did  not  intend  so  to 
designate  it, — that  he  does  not  here  use  "the  Commu- 
nion "  as  a  name  of  the  ordinance,  is  plain,  from  the  fact 
that  he  speaks  separately  of  "  the  communion  of  the  blood 
of  Christ,"  and  "the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ," 
and  then,  a  little  after,  speaks  of  "  communion  with  devils." 
He  evidently  uses  the  word,  not  as  a  name  of  an  ordi- 
nance, but  in  its  general  sense  of  fellowship.  The  name 
of  "the  Communion,"  though  a  most  appropriate  name, 
and  one  which  came  into  use  in  the  Christian  Church  at  a 
very  early  day,  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  a  scripture  name 
of  the  ordinance. 

"The  Lord's  Supper."  "When  ye  come  together, 
therefore,  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's 
Supper.  For  in  eating  every  one  taketh  before  other  his 
own  supper:  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another  is  drunken." 
1  Cor.  xi.  20,  21. 

That  the  expression  "the  Lord's  Supper"  is  here  used 


TJiC  Institution  of  the  Lords  Supper.  7 

as  a  name  of  the  sacramental  rite  Christ  instituted  in 
"the  upper  chamber"  at  Jerusalem,  on  "the  same  night  in 
which  he  was  betrayed,"  is  plain,  from  the  context. 

The  application  of  the  name  "the  Lord's  Supper" 
{kuriakon  deipnon)  to  this  ordinance  is  usually  accounted 
for  by  saying  it  was  "the  Supper  instituted  by  the  Lord." 
[Alford).  This  is  but  a  part  of  the  truth.  The  name  of 
supper  {deipnon)  is  given  to  the  Paschal  feast  (see  Jno. 
xiii.  2,  4;  xxi.  20).  The  Passover  was  a  feast  of  a  pecu- 
liar character, — "a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice."  (§  22.)  When 
our  Lord  instituted  the  Lord's  Supper  to  take  the  place  in 
his  Church  of  the  Paschal  Supper,  he  evidently  intended 
that  the  spiritual  character  of  the  ordinance  should  re- 
main unchanged;  that  the  later  ordinance  should  be  "a 
feast  upon  a  sacrifice  "  as  the  former  had  been ;  and  to 
give  expression  to  this  truth,  the  title  Supper  (deipnon) 
commonly  given  to  the  one,  was  under  inspiration  of  God 
given  to  the  other.  As  administered  by  our  Lord  himself, 
and  as  Paul  directed  it  to  be  administered  at  Corinth,  it 
was  not  a  Supper  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word,  i.  e., 
a  meal  parta.ken  of  at  the  close  of  the  day,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  satisfying  hunger ;  but  a  supper  in  the  ecclesi- 
astical sense  which  the  word  deipnon  had  acquired  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

This  title  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  only  distinctive 
title  given  the  ordinance  in  the  Scriptures.  "The  cup  is 
called  'the  cup  of  blessing,'  (1  Cor.  x.  16),  but  this  is  evi- 
dently not  a  name  for  the  whole  ordinance.  And  in  1 
Cor.  x.  21,  communicating  is  called  partaking  of  'the 
Lord's  table.'  This  hardly  amounts  to  a  calling  of  the 
ordinance  by  the  name  of  '  table  ;'  but  it  is  instructive,  as 
showing  no  favor  whatever  to  the  notion  of  altars  and 
sacrifice,  as  connected  with  the  Lord's  Supper."  {Dah- 
neys  Theology,  p.  800.) 

§  4.  J.  Summary  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

1.  "This  do  in  remembrance  of  7ne."     Luke  xxii.  19. 
"  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you : 
this  do  in  remembrance  of  m,e.  .  .   .     This  do  ye,  as  oft 


8  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Siqjper. 

as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's 
death  till  he  come."     1  Cor.  xi.  24-26. 

In  these  words  the  Lord's  Supper  is  distinctly  set  forth 
as  A  COMMEMORATIVE  RITE,  a  memorial  of  his  death. 

2.  "  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave 
it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it."  Matt.  xxvi.  26. 
See  also  Mark  xiv.  22,  23 ;  Luke  xxii.  19  :  1  Cor.  xi. 
23-25. 

In  these  words  the  ordinance  is  presented  as  a  symbol- 
ic RITE :  a  rite  in  which  under  a  sensible  form  is  set  forth 
spiritual  truth. 

3.  "This  is  my  blood  of  the  Neio  Testament  [Covenant) 
which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Matt. 
xxv.  28;  Mark  xiv.  24.  "This  is  the  Neio  Testament 
{Covenmit)  in  my  blood."    1  Cor.  xi.  25  ;  Luke  xxii.  20. 

Here  the  ordinance  is  presented  as  a  covenanting 
RITE;  the  "seal  of  the  New  Covenant." 

4.  "Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  it.  .  .  .  And  he  took 
the  cup  and  gave  thanks."  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  27;  Mark  xiv. 
22,  23;  Luke  xxii.  19,  20;  1  Cor,  xi.  24,  25. 

In  these  words  the  ordinance  is  set  forth  as  A  Eucha- 
rist; i.  e.,  an  ordinance  in  which  the  participant  blesses 
God  and  gives  thanks  for  the  benefits  signified  and  sealed 
to  him  in  his  participation  of  it. 

5.  "The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ? 
For  we  being  many  are  one  bread,  and  one  body  :  for  we 
are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread."     1  Cor.  x.  16,  17. 

In  these  words  of  Paul,  we  have  an  inspired  interpreta- 
tion of  our  Lord's  acts  in  breaking  the  bread,  so  that  all 
ate  of  the  same  bread,  and  causing  all  to  drink  of  the 
same  cup.  They  were  intended  to  signify  the  participants' 
communion  with  him,  their  common  Lord,  and  through 
him,  their  communion  one  with  another.  Hence  it  is,  that 
this  ordinance,  from  a  very  early  day,  has  borne  the  name 
in  the  Church  of  the  holy  communion. 


The  Lord's  Siq->pcr  a  Commemorative  Bite. 


CHATTER  II. 

THE  lord's  supper  A  COMMEMORATIVE  RITE. 

J5.  Commemorative  Rites.  {6.  The  Rite  Commemorative  of  our  Lord's  Death. 
?7.  The  Need  of  this  Commemoration.  §8.  The  Effect  of  this  Commemo- 
ration. 

§5.  Commemorative  Rites. 

"  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it, 
and  gave  it  unto  them,  saying,  This  is  my  body  which  is 
given  for  you:  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  Luke  xxii. 
19. 

"  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord,  that  which  also  I  de- 
hvered  unto  you.  That  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in 
which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread;  and  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat;  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  broken  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of 
me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when 
he  had  supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in 
my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remem- 
brance of  me."  1  Cor.  xi.  23-25. 

In  these  passages  of  Scripture,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  dis- 
tinctly set  forth  as  a  commemorative  rite ;  to  keep  alive 
his  memory  in  the  world.  The  practice  of  keeping  alive 
the  memory  of  great  events  by  means  of  commemorative 
rites  is  very  ancient,  and  has  prevailed  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent  among  all  nations,  and  in  every  part  of  the  world. 

The  Passover,  the  place  of  which  the  Lord's  Supper 
takes  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  was  a  com- 
memorative rite.  The  account  of  its  institution  is  given 
us  in  the  words  : — "  Draw  out,  and  take  you  a  lamb,  ac- 
cording to  your  families,  and  kill  the  passover.  And  ye 
shall  take  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  blood  that  is 
in  the  basin,  and  strike  the  lintel  and  the  two  side-posts 
1* 


10  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 

with  the  blood  that  is  in  the  basin ;  and  none  of  you  shall 
go  out  at  the  door  of  his  house  until  the  morning.  For 
the  Lord  will  pass  through  to  smite  the  Egyptians ;  and 
when  he  seeth  the  blood  upon  the  lintel,  and  on  the  two- 
side-posts,  the  Lord  will  pass  over  the  door,  and  will  not 
suffer  the  destroyer  to  come  in  unto  your  houses  to  smite 
you.  And  ye  shall  observe  this  thing  for  an  ordinance  to 
thee  and  to  thy  sons  forever.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass 
when  ye  be  come  unto  the  land  which  the  Lord  will  give 
you,  according  as  he  hath  promised,  that  ye  shall  keep  this 
service.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  your  children 
shall  say  unto  you,  What  mean  ye  by  this  service?  That 
ye  shall  say,  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  passover,  who 
passed  over  the  houses  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt, 
when  he  smote  the  Egyptians  and  delivered  our  houses." 
Ex.  xii.  21-27. 

Instituted  more  than  three  thousand  years  ago,  this 
Passover  is  observed  to-day,  by  the  Jews,  long  scattered 
abroad  though  they  have  been,  in  every  part  of  the  world : 
— and  so  the  memory  of  the  event  it  was  designed  to  com- 
memorate is  kept  fresh  among  men: — and  whilst  most 
other  contemporary  events  have  been  forgotten,  or  if  an 
indistinct  recollection  of  them  remains,  are  looked  upon 
with  doubt  and  distrust,  all  thoughtful  men  believe  in  the 
deliverance  of  Israel  from  bondage  in  Egypt  with  firmest 
faith ; — feel  as  certain  of  it  as  if  it  had  occurred  but  a 
short  time  ago. 

§  6.   The  Rite  Commeinorative  of  our  Lord's  Death. 

"  As  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye 
do  show  the  Ljord's  death  till  he  come."     1  Cor.  xi.  26. 

"  0  foolish  Galatians,  who  hath  bewitched  you,  that  ye 
should  not  obey  the  truth,  before  whose  eyes  Jesus  Christ 
hath  been  evidently  setfo  rth ,  crucified  aviong  you. ' '  Gal .  iii.  1 . 

"  Ye  do  show  (katangellete)  the  Lord's  death."  Katag- 
gello  means,  literally — "  to  bring  word  down  to  any  one, 
to  bring  it  home  to  him :  hence  to  announce,  to  publish, 
to  show  forth."  [Rohinson).  By  partaking  of  the  broken 
bread  and  the  ^NmQ  poured  out,  we  set  forth  visibly  before 
our  own  eyes,  and  the  eyes  of  others,  the  death  of  our  Lord. 


The  Xced  of  this  Commemoration.  11 

"  Evidoith/  set  forth  (prcegraphe)  crucified."  The  word 
prographo  was  used  among  the  Greeks  to  signify  the 
writing  upon  tablets,  to  be  hung  up  in  public  view,  for  the 
information  of  all.  And  the  event  which  the  Apostle  de- 
clares is  thus  published  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  death, 
by  crucifixion  of  our  Lord. 

For  some  reason, — we  will  not  now  stop  to  inquire  what 
that  reason  is — throughout  the  Scriptures,  in  the  Old  as 
well  as  in  the  New  Testament,  the  death  of  Christ  ever 
presents  itself  as  the  great  event  in  history.  Not  only  is 
it  foretold  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  with  a  minuteness  of  cir- 
cumstance such  as  characterizes  no  other  prophetic  record : 
— but  it  has  been  more  or  less  distinctly  foretold  by  all 
God's  prophets  from  the  beginning.  After  it  occurs,  it 
furnishes  the  grand  theme  of  the  Apostle's  preaching.  "  I 
determined,"  writes  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  "  not  to  know 
anything  -among  you,  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  cruci- 
fied." (1  Cor.  ii.  2.)  The  vision  of  a  spotless  lamb,  bleed- 
ing upon  God's  altar,  as  faithful  Abel  worshipped ;  not  by 
his  blood  to  wash  away  sin,  but  as  a  type  to  foreshadow  the 
death  of  Jesus,  is  one  of  the  first  visions  that  breaks  upon 
our  sight,  as  in  the  light  of  revelation,  we  attempt  to  trace 
the  history  of  our  race  back  to  the  beginning : — and  the 
same  vision  of  the  "  lamb  slain  "  is  seen  upon  the  throne, 
in  the  midst  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  when  "  the  mystery 
of  God  is  finished,"  and  the  "  mighty  angel,  lifting  up  his 
hand  to  heaven,  swears  by  him  that  liveth  for  ever  and 
ever,  that  there  shall  be  time  no  longer." 

This  event, — the  death  of  Christ  Jesus, — is  the  event 
specially  commemorated  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

§  7.   The  need  of  this  Comm^cmoration. 

When  we  remember  who  Christ  Jesus  was,  the  incar- 
nate Son  of  God,  Emmanuel,  his  death,  as  recorded  in  the 
gospels,  will  appear  the  strangest  event  in  all  history.  We 
are  not  surprised  at  the  record  contained  in  the  sixteenth 
chapter  of  Matthew  ; — That  when  Peter  had  come  to  un- 
derstand his  character  well  enough  to  say — "  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God ; "  and  "  Jesus  began 


12  The  Dodr'me  of  the  Lord'd  Supper. 

to  show  unto  his  disciples,  how  he  must  go  unto  Jerusalem, 
and  suffer  many  things  of  the  elders,  and  chief  priests,  and 
scrii>es,  and  he  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the  third  day. 
then  Peter  took  him,  and  began  to  rebuke  him,  saying, 
*'  Be  it  far  from  thee  Lord  :  this  shall  not  be  unto  thee." 
Matt.  xvi.  21,  22.  Christ's  death  appears  the  strangest 
event  in  all  history  for  two  reasons. 
I.  It  is  the  death  of  incarnate  Deity. 
The  fact  of  an  incarnation  of  Deity,  of  God's  assuming 
a  human  nature  into  union  with  his  divine,  has  incorpo- 
rated itself  into  the  religious  faith  of  many  nations.  This 
is  owing,  probably,  in  part,  to  the  preservation  by  tradi- 
tion of  some  remnant  of  the  earlier  promises  respecting 
redemption  and  the  redeemer ;  and  in  part,  to  man's  con- 
scious need  of  divine  interposition  on  his  behalf;'  taken  in 
connection  with  many  facts  which  mark  him  as  a  sinning, 
yet  not  a  heaven-forsaken  creature. 

That  the  Son  of  God  incarnate  should  have  spoken  "  as 
never  man  spake; "  that  amid  the  selfish  strifes  and  con- 
tentions of  earth  he  should  have  taught  to  all,  the  lesson 
— "  As  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to 
them  likewise,"  (Luke  vi.  31) : — that  to  suffering,  sorrow- 
ing, sinning  man,  he  should  have  said — "  Come  unto  me, 
all  ye  that  labor,  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest,"  (Matt.  xi.  28,)  is  easy  of  belief.  The  divine  origin 
of  such  lessons  as  these  is  apparent  in  their  own  light. 

That  the  Son  of  God  should  have  wrought  the  great 
and  gracious  miracles  recorded  of  Jesus ;  and  that  he 
should  have  appealed  to  these  as  attestations  of  his  divine 
mission,  as  he  does  in  his  answer  to  John's  question,  by 
his  disciples  — "  Go  and  shew  John  again  those  things 
which  ye  do  hear  and  see :  the  bhnd  receive  -their  sight; 
and  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf 
hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel 
preached  to  them,"  (Matt.  xi.  4,  5,)  is  just  what  we  would 
expect  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Some  infidel  phil- 
osophers have  contended  that  miracles  are  incredible ;  or 
that,  at  the  least,  it  is  impossible  they  should  enter  into  a 
rational  faith  upon  historic  evidence.  In  this,  they  have 
but  shown  their  ignorance  of  human  nature,  and  tne  laws 


TJiC  Need  of  this  Commemoration.  13 

of  belief  which  govern  the  human  mind.  The  belief  in 
incai-nations,  whether  false  or  true,  has  been  indissolubly 
united  with  the  belief  of  miracles;  and  the  working  of 
miracles,  among  all  nations,  has  been  regarded  as  the 
appropriate  attestation  of  a  divine  mission. 

That  the  Son  of  God  incarnate  should  have  been  born 
in  humble  life,  and  even  that  he  should  have  lived  in  such 
poverty  as  to  say — "  The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds 
of  the  air  have  nests ;  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where 
to  lay  his  head,"  (Matt.  viii.  20,)  though  it  is  far  from  what 
we  would  have  chosen;  yet  does  it  not  seem  so  very 
strange  when  we  reflect  that  the  stoop  from  the  tallest 
palace  of  earth  to  the  dunghill  of  the  beggar,  is  as 
nothing,  when  compared  to  the  stoop  from  the  throne  of 
God  in  heaven  to  the  tallest  palace ; — and  remember  that 
the  greatest  and  best  of  men  have  ever  cared  but  little  for 
the  power,  and  honor,  and  wealth  of  the  world. 

But  that  the  Son  of  God  incarnate  should  have  died 
the  death  of  a  malefactor,  the  accursed  death  of  the  cross, 
at  the  hands  of  wicked  men,  is  a  statement  which,  if  it  is 
to  be  received  as  true,  must  be  established  by  the  most 
irrefragable  proof. 

II.  "  Awake,  0  Sword,  against  my  Shepherd,  and 
against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts  ; 
Smite  the  Shepherd."  (Zech.  xiii.  7.)  In  these  words  of 
the  prophet  Zeehariah,  a  second  strange  feature  in  the 
death  of  our  Lord,  stranger  than  that  already  considered, 
is  brought  to  our  attention,  viz. :  that  in  his  death  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  appears  against  him.  Not  only  is  it  true, 
that  against  God's  "  holy  child  Jesus,  both  Herod  and 
Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles,  and  people  of  Israel, 
were  gathered  together,  for  to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and 
thy  counsel  determined  before  to  he  done,"  (Acts  iv.  27, 
28,)  but  God  himself  is  heard  crying — "  Awake,  0  Sword, 
.  .  .  Smite  the  Shepherd,"  and  in  his  bitter  agony,  the 
dying  sufferer  cries — "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou, 
forsaken  me  ?  "  (Matt,  xxvii.  4G.) 

In  the  story  of  his  life,  as  given  us  in  the  gospels, 
nothing  appears  more  marked  than  the  perfect  sinlessness 
of  Jesus.     At  the  commencement  of  his  public  ministry^ 


14  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Siir>j^er. 

a  voice  from  heaven  is  heard,  saying  to  him,  in  the  hear- 
ing of  a  great  multitude  gathered  on  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan — "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  (Mark  i.  11.)  At  his  death,  Pilate,  the  judge 
who  condemned  him,  ''  took  water  and  washed  his  hands 
before  the  multitude,  saying,  I  am  innocent  of  the  blood 
oi  this  just  person."  (Matt,  xxvii.  24.)  The  Centurion  who 
executed  him,  ''  and  they  that  were  with  him  watching 
Jesus,  when  they  saw  the  earthquake,  and  those  things 
that  were  done,  feared  greatly,  saying.  Truly  this  was  the 
So7i  of  God."  (Matt,  xxvii.  54.)  The  idea  of  the  sinless- 
ness  of  Jesus  pervades  the  whole  gospel  narrative,  and 
renders  it  unlike  the  story  of  any  other  life  that  has  ever 
been  written  by  man.  Let  the  reader  consider  one  single 
illustration  of  this  remark  : — the  illustration  afforded  by 
his  wonderful  prayers.  Unlike  the  prayers  of  all  other 
men,  his  contain  no  confessions  of  sin,  betray  no  conscious- 
ness of  sin.  He  teaches  his  disciples  to  pray,  he  prays 
for  them ;  but  even  when  he  prays  in  their  company,  as 
at  the  table  when  he  instituted  the  Lord's  Supper,  (see 
John  xvii.,)  they  cannot  unite  with  him  in  the  prayer. 
The  cry  of  his  sinless  soul  unto  God  is  one  in  which  sinful 
man  cannot  participate;  it  is  as  much  his  individual 
prayer,  though  uttered  in  the  midst  of  his  disciples,  as 
the  one  he  uttered  alone  upon  the  mountain-top. 

This  suffering  at  the  hand  of  God  of  the  sinless  Son  of 
Man,  is  without  parallel  in  the  history  of  our  race. 

History,  inspired  and  uninspired,  contains  the  record  of 
many  a  wicked  man's  suffering  for  his  sins.  It  is  true, 
heaven's  final  judgments  are  not  executed  here ;  yet  here 
has  God,  as  a  just  God,  not  left  himself  without  witness. 
"  There  is  scarcely  a  sin  which  has  not  been  singled  out  as 
the  object  of  God's  wrathful  displeasure.  Ham,  that  could 
mock  his  father,  surprised  into  intoxication,  is  accursed. 
Lot's  wife,  full  of  worldly  cares,  and  looking  back  upon  the 
loss  of  her  property  with  regret  and  repining,  is  turned 
into  a  pillar  of  salt.  Envy  and  aspiring  pride  bring  down 
immediate  destruction  upon  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram. 
In  Achan's  fate  and  Gehazi's  leprosy,  we  see  how  God  ab- 
horreth  covetousness.     Behold  thou  infamous  advocate  of 


Tlic  Xccd  of  this  Commemoration.  15 

fornication,  the  javelin  of  Phineas  avenging  GocVs  quarrel 
upon  Zimri  and  Cozbi ;  renounce  thy  fond  conceit  that  it 
will  not  be  judged  by  God — fgr  see;  three  and  .twenty 
thousand  persons  aie  cut  off  by  him  for  it -in  one  day.  Be 
astonished  at  the  patience  of  God  toward  thee,  thou  false 
and  lying  tongue,  when  thou  readcst  that  Ananias  and 
Sapphira  perished  with  the  breath  of  falsehood  upon  thcii' 
lips  !  Take  notice,  thou  despiser  of  Jesus  the  doom  of  thy 
fellow  criminal,  Elyraas  the  sorcerer,  and  of  the  judicial 
bhndness  with  which  he  was  smitten,  while  he  perverted 
the  way  of  truth.  Understand  ye  vain  and  haughty,  from 
the  ignominious  death  of  Herod,  that  a  proud  heart  is  an 
abomination  to  the  Lord;  and  that  self-exaltation,  on  ac- 
count of  gifts,  or  prominence  of  any  kind,  is  what  he  can- 
not endure ;  for  behold  the  royal  deified  orator,  after  the 
shout  of  blasphemous  applause  from  the  multitude,  is  im- 
mediately smitten  by  the  angel  of  God,  because  he  gave 
not  God  the  glory,  and  he  was  eaten  of  worms  and  gave  up 
the  ghost."  {Venn  8  Duty  of  Man,  p.  50.) 

History  contains,  also,  the  record  of  many  a  good  man 
suffering;  yet  this,  too,  is  but  the  record  of  the  sinner  suf- 
fering for  his  sins,  as  their  confessions  prove.  "All  that  is 
come  upon  us,  is  for  our  evil  deeds,  and  for  our  great  tres- 
pass, seeing  that  thou  our  God  hath  punished  us  less  than 
our  iniquities  deserve,"  (Ezra  ix.  1),  is  Ezra's  confession 
on  behalf  of  himself  and  his  people,  with  reference  to  the 
captivity  in  Babylon.  Job,  of  whom  God  declares,  "  there 
is  none  like  him  in  the  earth,  a  perfect  and  an  upright  man, 
one  that  feareth  God,  and  escheweth  evil,"  (Job  i.  8,)  was 
a  remarkable  sufferer,  and  for  a  time  seemed  disposed  to 
charge  God  foolishly  ;  yet  in  the  end,  when  God  drew  near 
and  reasoned  with  him,  exclaims — "  I  have  heard  of  thee 
by  the  hearing  of  the  ear;  but  now,  mine  eye  seeth 
thee;  wherefore  I  abhor  myself,  and  repent  in  dust  and 
aahes."  (Job  xlii.  5,  6.)  David,  often  smarted  under  the 
chastening  hand  of  God.  Yet  he  declares,  as  re- 
membering his  sufferings  and  his  sins, — "  Out  of  the 
depths  have  I  cried  unto  thee,  0  Lord.  ...  If  thou 
Lord  shouldst  mark  iniquities,  0  Lord,  who  shall  stand." 
(Pa.  cxxx.  1,  3.)     "  God  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our 


16  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

sins;  nor  rewarded  us  according  to  our  iniquities."  (Ps. 
ciii.  10.) 

The  case  of  an  intelligent  moral  agent,  suffering  at  the 
hand  of  God,  though  sinless,  is  without  parallel  in  the  history 
of  our  world.  And  neither  heaven  nor  hell  can  furnish 
such  a  case.  Heaven  is  peopled  with  myriads  of  sinless 
beings,  but  there  is  no  suffering  there.  Hell  is  full  of  suf- 
fering beings,  but  there  is  no  sinless  one  among  all  those 
who  "  gnaw  their  tongues  for  pain,  while  they  blaspheme 
the  God  of  heaven." 

In  the  case  of  Christ  crucified,  we  have  a  sinless  sufFerer> 
suffering  immediately  at  the  hand  of  God;  and  the  story  of 
that  suffering,  if  it  is  to  be  believed,  calls  for  the  clearest 
possible  proof. 

§  8.   The  effect  of  this  Commemoration. 

We  have  already  alluded  to  the  fact,  that  the  universal 
observance  of  the  Passover  by  the  Jews,  scattered  as  they 
are,  and  have  long  been,  among  all  the  nations  of  the  eartjj, 
is  regarded  by  thoughtful  men,  as  affording  such  proof  of 
the  event  it  was  intended  to  commemorate,  viz. :  the  deliv- 
erance of  Israel  from  bondage  in  Egypt,  that  of  all  the 
events  in  the  past  history  of  the  world  this  is  regarded  as 
among  the  most  certain : — and  this,  though  that  deliver- 
ance occurred  more  than  three  thousand  years  ago ;  so  long 
ago  that  most  other  events  of  contemporary  history  have 
been  lost  to  human  knowledge. 

A  similar  result  has  followed  the  commemoration  of 
our  Lord's  death  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper.  This 
rite  is,  and  for  a  long  time  has  been,  observed  in  every 
land  into  which  Christianity  has* extended.  However  much 
men  may  differ  as  to  the  precise  nature  of  the  rite,  all  agree 
that  it  was  instituted  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  Christ, 
and  of  "Christ  crucified:" — and  hence,  Christ's  death  is 
received  by  all  as  an  unquestionable  fact ;  and  as  a  doctrine, 
it  has  incorporated  itself  in  every  creed  that  claims  the 
name  of  Christian ;  and  this  event,  the  most  incredible  in 
all  history,  is  the  most  universally  and  most  firmly  believed 
of  ail. 


The  Lord's  Supper  a  Symbolic  Rite.  17 


CHAPTEE    III. 

THE   lord's   supper   A    SYMBOLIC   RITE. 

g 9.  Symbolic  Rites.    ?  10.  The  Lord's  death  Sacrificial.    1 11.  Chrit^t   "the  Bread 
of  Life."    g  12.  Tliis  Truth  as  expresseel  in  ProtestaiU  Confessions. 

§  9.  Symbolic  Rites. 

"  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it, 
and  gave  unto  them,  saying,  {Tale,  cat,  Matt.)  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  given  for  you.  Likewise  also,  the  cup 
after  supper,  saying,  {Drink  ye  all  of  it,  Matt.)  This  cup 
is  the  Now  Testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shedfor  you." 
Luke  xxii.  19,  20. 

"  If  we  wish  to  understand  an  author,  for  instance  the 
Xew  Testament,  we  must  transport  ourselves  from  our 
age  and  country,  and  place  ourselves  in  the  position  of 
those  whom  our  Saviour  or  his  disciples  addressed.  We 
must  invest  ourselves  with  their  knowledge,  their  feelings, 
habits,  opinions,  if  we  wish  to  understand  the  discourses 
which  were  addressed  primarily  and  immediately  to 
them."     (Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  p.  41.) 

The  substantial  correctness  of  the  above-cited  law  of  in- 
terpretation, as  laid  down  by  Cardinal  Wiseman,  all  must 
admit.  Let  as  apply  it  in  the  case  of  the  passage  quoted 
at  the  head  of  this  section. 

The  disciples,  to  whom  our  Lord  addressed  himself  in 
the  institution  of  the  Supper,  wore  all  Jews,  born  and 
reared  in  the  land  of  Judea.  The  Jewish  Church  pos- 
sessed, by  divine  appointment,  a  more  extended  and  compli- 
cated ceremonial  than  has  obtained  in  the  religious  wor- 
ship of  any  other  people  on  the  fiice  of  the  earth  ;  and  the 
prevailing  tendency  of  religious  thought  in  that  day,  as- 


18  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sujypsr. 

cribed  undue  importance  to  this  ceremonial.  All  their 
numerous  sacrifices ;  all  their  varied  purifications — even 
the  structure  of  their  temples,  the  centre  of  their  worship, 
were  all  full  of  symbolic  teaching,  representing  under  sen- 
sible forms  spiritual  truths ; — "  were  shadows  of  good 
things  to  come."     (Heb.  x.  1.) 

Our  Lord's  personal  teaching  partook  largely  of  the 
same  general  character ;  and  this,  doubtless,  because  the 
religious  training  of  the  j)eople  fitted  them  to  receive  in- 
struction in  this  form.  His  miracles  were,  not  only 
"  signs," — proofs  of  his  divine  mission,  but  they  were  all 
fraught  with  lessons  of  divine  truth.  Did  he  restore  bodi- 
ly sight  to  the  blind,  it  was  to  set  forth  in  symbol  the 
truth  that  he  had  come  to  enable  the  sinner,  by  his  Spirit, 
to  comprehend  the  Gospel.  Did  he  require  faith  as  a  con- 
dition of  bodily  healing,  it  was  to  teach  men  that  through 
faith,  and  through  faith  alone,  can  Gospel  salvation  be 
rendered  available  to  the  sinner.  His  favorite  method  of 
public  teaching  was  by  parables ;  and  his  parables,  as  all 
agree,  are  exhibitions  of  spiritual  truth,  under  sensible 
forms.  So  he  himself  explained  them  to  his  disciples, 
when  they  asked  of  him  their  meaning. 

The  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  Paschal  Supper.  As  the  Jews  understood 
it,  the  Passover  was,  not  only  a  commemorative  rite,  but 
a  rite  full  of  symbolic  teaching ; — indeed,  it  was  its  sym- 
bolic teaching  which  fitted  it  to  serve  the  purposes  of  com- 
memoration. 

The  language  which  our  Lord  uses  on  this  occasion, 
was  language  which  long  use  had  associated  with  the  sac- 
rificial worship  to  which  his  hearers  were  accustomed. 
"  This  is  my  body,  which  is  given  (didomenoii)  for  you." 
Of  this  word,  Robinson,  in  his  New  Testament  Lexicon, 
writes  :  "  used  of  sacrifice  or  homage,  to  give  or  off"er." 
Luke  ii.  24  :  "  And  to  offer  a  sacrifice,"  &c.  Jno.  vi.  51  : 
"  And  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  wall 
give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  "  This  is  my  blood  which 
is  shed  for  you,  (for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
Matt.)  Compare  this  language  with  Heb.  ix.  22  :  "  And 
almost  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged  with  blood  ;    and 


The  Lord's  Siqypera  Symholic  Rite.  19 

without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission."  And  we 
think  the  reader  can  have  little  doubt  that  the  language 
here  is  sacrificial,  and  would  naturally  be  so  understood 
by  our  Lord's  disciples ;  and  this,  all  the  more  readily, 
since  the  very  cup  he  gave  them  was  filled  with  the  wine 
just  before  used  in  the  Paschal  Supper,  where,  beyond  all 
question,  its  use  was  to  represent  the  blood  of  the  Paschal 
lamb,  and  the  lesson  it  conveyed  was  taught  in  symbol. 
For  a  fuller  examination  of  this  point  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  §  22. 

On  our  Lord's  words,  used  on  this  occasion,  Alexander 
remarks  :  "  This  is  my  body,  common  to  all  four  accounts, 
appears  so  unambiguous  and  simple  an  expression,  that  it 
is  hard  to  recognize  in  it  the  occasion  and  the  subject  of 
the  most  protracted  and  exciting  controversy  that  has 
rent  the  Church  within  the  last  thousand  years.  That 
controversy  is  so  purely  theological  that  it  has  scarcely 
any  basis  in  the  exposition  of  the  text ;  the  only  word 
upon  which  it  could  fasten  (the  verb  is)  being  one  which 
in  Aramaic  would  not  be  expressed,  and  therefore  belongs 
merely  to  the  Greek  translation  of  our  Saviour's  language. 
Until  the  strong,  unguarded  figures  of  the  early  lathers 
had  been  petrified  into  a  dogma,  at  first  by  popular  mis- 
apprehension, and  at  last  by  theological  perversion,  these 
words  suggested  no  idea  but  the  one  which  they  still  con- 
vey to  every  plain  unbiassed  reader,  that  our  Saviour  calls 
the  bread  his  body  in  the  same  sense  that  he  calls  himself 
a  door,  (Jno.  x.  9,)  a  vine,  (Jno.  xv.  1,)  a  root,  (Rev.  xxii. 
16,)  a  star,  and  is  described  by  many  other  metaphors  in 
Scripture.  The  bread  was  an  emblem  of  his  flesh,  as 
wounded  for  the  sins  of  men,  and  as  administered  for  their 
spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace."  (Alexander's 
Notes  on  Mark  xiv.  22.) 

The  lessons  which  the  Lord's  Supper  teaches  in  symbols 
are : 

1.  That  in  his  "  obedience  unto  death  "  he  offers  himself 
a  propitiatory  sacrfice  for  sinners : — That  he  gave  up  to 
God  his  life  in  the  place  of  the  forfeited  life  of  the  sinner, 
just  as  the  life  of  the  lamb  slain  in  sacrifice  was  given  in 
the  place  of  the  forfeited  life  of  the  offerer.     "  This  is  my 


20  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

body,  ivhich  is  given  for  you;  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for 
you." 

2.  That  as  the  natural  Hfe  of  the  body  must  be  main- 
tained by  feeding  upon  appropriate  food,  so  must  the  spir- 
itual life  implanted  in  regeneration  be  maintained,  by  con- 
stant dependence  upon  Christ,  and  the  daily  reception  of 
grace  through  him."     "Take,  eat;  Drink  ye  all  of  it." 

3.  That  as  it  is  of  "  one  broken  bread"  we  all  partake, 
so  are  we  all  one  in  Christ.     See  1  Cor.  x.  16, 17. 

Leaving  the  last-mentioned  of  these  lessons  to  be  dis- 
cussed hereafter,  (see  Ch.  vi.)  let  us  direct  our  attention 
now  to  an  examination  of  the  other  two. 


§  10.   The  Lord's  Death  Sacrificial. 

The  effect  of  sacrifices  under  Moses'  Law  was  two-fold. 
(1)  They  made  complete  atonement  for  the  ceremonial 
guilt  of  the  offerer.  (2)  They  were  all  typical.  They  all 
foretold  the  one  only  perfect,  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin, 
which  in  the  fulness  of  time,  Christ  should  offer  upon 
Calvary ;  and  through  faith  on  the  part  of  the  offerer, — 
faith,  not  in  a  propitiation  made  by  "  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  of  goats,"  but  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  of  which  that  was 
but  a  shadow,  they  secured  the  pardon  of  sin  and  eternal  life 
to  the  believing  worshipper.  They  were  simply  the  gospel 
in  symbol;  and  they  saved  through  faith,  just  as  the  gospel 
preached  by  the  living  minister  saves  through  faith  now. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  the  reader's  attention  has 
been  directed  to  the  facts — (1)  That  the  event  commemo- 
rated in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  in  Scripture  presented  as 
the  great  event  in  the  world's  history;  and  (2)  That 
this  greatest  event  in  history,  is  at  the  same  time  the 
strangest ; — it  is  the  ignominious,  accursed  death  of  the 
Son  of  God,  of  God  incarnate, — and  it  is  the  death  of  a 
sinless  one  at  the  hand  of  God. 

The  only  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  great,  this 
strange  event,  the  only  explanation  which  can  harmonize  it 
with  what  we  believe  and  know  of  God,  is  that  contained 
in  our  Lord's  words,  "  this  is  my  body  given  for  you 
.  .  .  my  blood  which  is  shed  for  you."     As  his  disciples, 


The  LonVs  DccUJl  Sacnficial.  21 

faniili;ir  witli  the  symbolic  lesson  of  sacrifice,  would  na- 
turally understand  him,  his  words  mean, —  My  life  is 
given  to  redeem  your  life, — I  take  the  place  of  you 
sinners,  and  suffer  at  the  hands  of  divine  justice  the 
penalty  of  your  sins,  that  you  may  have  life  through  my 
death.  The  truth  had  been  expressed  long  before  by 
God's  Prophet  in  the  words, — "  Surely  ho  hath  borne  our 
griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows,  ...  Ho  was  wounded 
for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities ; 
the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him;  and  with  his 
stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray, 
we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way;  and  the  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  (Isa.  liii.  4-6.) 

This  explanation  harmonizes  this  strange  event  with  the 
character  of  Grod.  Is  the  question  asked, — Y/hy  did 
he,  the  sinless  one,  suffer  at  the  hand  of  God  ?  The  an- 
swer is; — He  had  taken  the  sinner's  place,  and  a  right- 
eous God  must  enforce  the  holy  law  which  demanded  the 
sinner's  blood,  even  though  his  own  Son  became  the 
sinner's  substitute.  "Why  was  he  forsaken  of  God  in  his 
extremity?  The  answer  is  ; — He  had  taken  the  sinner's 
place,  and  must  be  treated  as  justice  demanded  that  the 
sinner  should  be  treated  of  God.  Why  is  it  that  the 
incarnate  Son  of  God  is  the  sufferer  ?  The  answer  is  ; — 
He  alone,  possessing  an  underived  existence,  is  not  under 
the  creature's  law  of  service  to  the  Creator,  and  so,  can 
rightfully  cfo,  what  neither  man  nor  angel  can — offer  his 
life  in  the  place  of  the  sinner's  life,  and  yet  not  "  offer 
robbery  for  burnt-offering."  And  again,  because  he  is 
God,  and  all  his  sufferings  have  their  fountain-head  in  the 
love  of  God,  I  can  believe  the  wondrous  story.  That 
which  woirtd  be  utterly  incredible,  if  told  of  the  love  of  a 
man  or  an  angel,  can  be  reasonably  believed  when  told 
of  the  love  of  God  "  which  passeth  knowledge." 

The  explanation  of  our  Lord's  death,  given  by  the 
Socinian,  that  he  died  as  he  did  to  set  us  a  perfect  ex- 
ample of  the  way  in  which  a  good  man  ought  to  die, — 
not  only  fails  utterly  to  reconcile  his  death  with  the 
justice  of  God,  but  is  irreconcilable  with  what  the  Scrip- 
tures record  as  the  sure  promise  of  God. 


22  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

In  Christ's  case,  the  intensest  suffering  of  the  dj-ing 
hour,  arose  from  his  being  forsaken  of  God.  The  bodily 
suffering  he  endured  in  being  nailed  to  the  cross  seems 
not  to  have  disturbed  the  quiet  of  his  spirit, — the  igno- 
miny of  his  death  as  a  malefactor,  and  the  jeers  and 
mockery  of  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  produced  no  im- 
pression upon  him, — it  is  God's  forsaking  him  which 
wrings  from  his  lips  the  bitter  cry,  "  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? " — which  breaks  his  heart, 
for  "when  he  had  cried  again,  with  a  loud  voice,  he 
yielded  up  the  ghost."  (Matt,  xxvii.  50.)  In  this,  which 
is  a  characteristic  feature  of  his  death,  Christ  can  be  no 
example  to  the  good  man,  unless  God's  sure  word  of 
promise  fails: — For  God's  promise  is  —  ''When  thou 
passest  through  the  waters,  I  will  be  with  thee ;  and 
through  the  rivers,  they  shall  not  overflow  thee ;  when 
thou  walkest  through  the  fire,  thou  shalt  not  be  burned ; 
neither  shall  the  flame  kindle  upon  thee.  .  .  .  Fear  not, 
for  I  am  with  thee,"  (Isa.  xliii.  2,  5.)  "  I  will  never  leave 
thee,  nor  forsake  thee."  (Heb.  xiii.  5.) 

§  11.   Christ  the  "  Bread  of  Lifer 

In  the  Scriptures,  and  especially  in  our  Lord's  re- 
corded discourses,  we  read  much  of  a  life  belonging  to 
the  Christian,  which  is  evidently  entirely  distinct  from, 
and  in  its  nature,  far  above  his  natural  life.  To  Nicodc- 
mus  our  Lord  says — "As  Moses  lifted  up  the* serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up  ; 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only -begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everloMing  lifer  (John 
iii.  14,  16.)  At  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  he  said  to  the  Jews 
assembled  around  him,' — "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
He  that  heareth  my  words,  and  believeth  on  him  that 
sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  The  hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God ;  and  they  that  hear 
shall  live.  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself;  so 
hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself."  (John 


Chrisi  ihc  "  Bread  of  Life:'  23 

V.  24-2G.)  To  distinguish  this  everlasting  Hfe  from 
man's  natural  life  which  endures  but  three-score  years 
and  ten,  or,  at  most,  four-score  years,  as  well  as  to  mark 
its  higher  spiritual  character,  we  are  accustomed  to  speak 
of  it  as  the  Christian's  spiritual  life. 

From  the  words  of  our  Lord,  quoted  aliove,  we  loarn — 
(1)  That  this  spiritual  life  is  not  a  necessary  element  in 
man's  being,  as  natural  life  is :  but  that  it  is  given  to  man 
already  in  being,  but  spiritually  dead,  "dead  in  trespasses 
and  in  sins."  (Eph.  ii.  1.)  The  hour  is  coming,  and  oiow 
is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God; 
and  they  that  hear  shall  live."  (2)  That  the  way  for  the 
bestowal  of  this  eternal  life  was  opened  up  by  the  "lifting 
up  "  {i.  e.,  crucifixion,  see  Jno.  xii.  33)  of  him  wdio  is  at 
once,  God's  "only-begotten  Son,"  and  "the  Son  of  man." 
"  Even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
hfe."  (3)  That  in  the  divinely  established  economy  of 
salvation,  this  life  comes  to  the  Christian  through  the 
hands  of  the  Son.  The  fact  that  the  immediate  agent  in 
imparting,  and  subsequently  maintaining  this  life  is  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  in  no  way  at  variance  with  this  doctrine  ; 
since  in  this  whole  matter  the  Spirit  acts  as  one  sent  of 
the  Son  (see  Jno.  xvi.  7-15),  and  what  is  done  by  an 
agent  is  always  regarded  as  done  by  him  whose  agent  he  is. 
"As  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself;  so  hath  he  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself." — "  Jesus  saith  ...  I  am 
the  resurrection,  and  the  life  ;  he  that  believeth  in  me, 
though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live ;  and  whosoever 
liveth,  and  believeth  in  me,  shall  never  die."  (Jno.  xi.  25, 
2G.)  (4)  That  man  possesses  himself  of  this  everlasting 
life,  through  faith  in  Christ ;  that  faith  is  the  hand  which 
the  sinner  stretches  forth  to  receive  the  gift.  "  God  .  .  . 
gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life." 

When  our  Lord  instituted  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper, 
while  he  y^et  sat  at  table  with  his  disciples,  he  addressed 
to  them  the  words — "  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father 
is  the  husbandman.  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth 
not  fruit,  he  taketh  away ;  and  every  branch  that  beai'eth 


24  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

fruit,  lie  purge th  it  that  it  may  bring  forth  more  fruit. 
Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken 
unto  you.  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  As  the  branch 
cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine ;  no 
more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me.  I  am  the  vine, 
ye  are  the  branches.  He  that  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him, 
the  same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit ;  for  without  me  ye 
can  do  nothing.  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast 
forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered;  and  men  gather  them, 
and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned."  (Jno. 
XV.  1-6.) 

Here,  our  Lord  teaches  us  these  further  lessons  respect- 
ing this  spiritual  life. — 

(1)  That  this  life  is  given  of  Christ  to  the  Christian, 
not  by  a  single  act, — lilce  a  seed,  to  develop  the  whole 
plant  out  of  itself,  under  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  na- 
ture ;  but  continuously,  as  life  is  imparted  by  the  living 
vine  to  the  living  branch  by  the  continuous  influx  of  the 
life-giving  sap  which  it  imparts.  To  fix  this  idea  the 
more  distinctly  in  the  minds  of  his  disciples,  our  Lord 
says,  not  only — "he  that  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  him,  the 
same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit,"  but  he  reverses  the 
statement  and  adds — "if  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is 
cast  forth  as  a  branch  and  is  withered." 

(2)  That  one  great  design  of  Christ  in  imparting  this 
life  to  the  Christian  in  this  world  is,  that  he  may  bring 
forth  fruit.  "He  that  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  him,  the 
same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit."  And  he  represents  his 
Father  as  pruning  the  branch  that  bears  fruit,  "  that  it 
may  bring  forth  more  fruit."  What  the  fruit  here  spoken 
of  is,  we  learn  from  such  scriptures  as  the  following: — 
"The  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first  pure,  then  peace- 
able, gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and 
good  fruits,  without  partiality,  and  without  hypocrisy,  and 
the  fruit  of  righteousness  is  sown  in  peace  of  them  that 
make  peace."  (James  iii.  17,  18.)  "The  fruit  of  the 
Spirit  " — the  Spirit  working  as  se7it  of  Christ, — is  love, 
joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith, 
meekness,  temperance."  (Gal.  v.  22,  23.)  And  of  the 
effects  of  the  "pruning  of  the  Father,"  i.  e.,  his  fatherly 


This  Truth  as  expressed  in  Protestant  Confcssioiis.  25 

cliastening  of  his  children,  we  read, — "  No  chastening,  for 
the  present,  seemeth  to  be  joyous,  but  grievous  ;  neverthe- 
less, afterward  it  yieldeth  the  peaceable  fruits  of  righteous- 
ness unto  them  which  are  exercised  thereby."  (Heb.  xii. 
11.)  What  in  the  Scriptures  are  spoken  of  as  the  Chris- 
tian graces,  are  the  fruits  which  the  living  branch  brings 
forth  through  its  connection  with  the  living  vine. 


§  12.   This  truth  as  expressed  in  Protestant  Confessions. 

To  Nicodemus  our  Lord  said, — "  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit.  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  ye  must  be  born 
again."  (Jno.  iii.  6,  7.)  Here  representing  the  imparta- 
tion  of  this  spiritual  life  as  a  new  birth.  One  truth  he 
intended  to  teach  in  the  use  of  this  figure,  as  the  Scrip- 
tures interpret  his  language,  is  that  "the  new  man,"  like 
"the  natural  man,"  is  born  in  the  condition  of  an  infant, 
and  he  needs  to  grow  and  strengthen,  if  he  is  to  attain 
unto  the  stature  of  a  perfect  man.  In  the  words,  "Take, 
eat  .  .  .  drink  ye  all  of  it,"  we  are  taught,  that  just  as 
bread  and  wine,  the  common  food  of  the  people  in  that 
day,  nourishes  the  living  body,  supplying  the  daily  waste 
of  that  body,  and  providing  material  for  its  growth ;  so 
believing  with  the  heart  in  "  Christ  cnicified"  will  nourish 
the  new  man.  In  his  discourse  at  Capernaum,  our  Lord 
uses  the  word  believing,  with  reference  to  this  spiritual 
life,  as  the  equivalent  of  eating  and  drinking,  used  with 
reference  to  the  natural  life.  "I  am  the  bread  of  life;  he 
that  Cometh  to  me,  shall  never  hunger;  and  he  that  be- 
lieve th  on  me,  shall  never  thirst."  (Jno.  vi.  35.)  Of  the 
same  general  import  is  the  language  of  the  Apostle, — "As 
new-born  babes,  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  that 
ye  may  grow  thereby;  if  so  be  ye  have  tasted  that  the 
Lord  is  gracious."     (1  Pet.  ii.  2,  3.) 

The  reader  is  now  prepared  to  understand  such  lan- 
guage as  that  of  the  "Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  where 
the  administrator  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  directed  to 
address  the  communicant  in  the  words — "Take,  and  eat 
this  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for  thee,  and  feed  on 
2 


26  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

him  in  thy  heart  by  faith,  with  thanksgiving." — And  that 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  —  "  Worthy  re- 
ceivers, outwardly  partaking  of  the  visible  elements  in 
this  sacrament,  do  then  also  inwardly  by  faith,  really 
and  indeed,  yet  not  carnally  and  corporally,  but  spiritual- 
ly, receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified,  and  all  the 
benefits  of  his  death.'.'     (Ch.  xxix.,  Sec.  vii.) 


The  Lords  Supper  a  Covenanting  Rite.  27 


CHAPTER    IV. 


THE   LORD  S   SUPPER   A    COVENANTING   RITE. 

J  13.  Tho  New  Testament  (diatheca).  ?  14.  The  Covenant  with  Abram.  Gen.  xt. 
8-18.  §  15.  The  Covenant  at  Sinai.  Ex.  xxiv.  3-8.  I  IC.  "The  Suit  of  the  Cov- 
enant of  thy  God."  g  17.  "Vain  Oblations."  g  18.  Relation  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  Old  Testament  sacrifices.    1 19.  The  New  Covenant-  Heb.  viii.  8-12. 

§  13.   The  Xew  Testament,  [diatheca.) 

"  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  {diatheca) 
Matt.  xxvi.  28,  see  also  Mark  xiv.  24,  Luke  xxii.  20,  1 
Cor.  xi.  25. 

The  Greek  diatheca  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  the  version  in  common  use  in  our 
Lord's  day,  is  used  to  translate  the  Hebrew  berith,  a  word 
which  in  our  English  version  is  uniformly  rendered  cove- 
nant. In  his  recorded  utterances  our  Lord  uses  the  word 
but  once,  and  that  is  in  the  institution  of  the  sacrament  of 
the  Supper.  "  The  words  of  institution  slightly  vary  in  the 
accounts  of  the  three  evangelists  and  the  apostle  Paul,  but 
in  each  of  them  he  is  represented  as  using  the  expression 
kaina  diatheca.  And  using  it  as  he  does,  without  a  word 
of  explanation,  we  cannot  doubt  that  he  intended  it  to  be 
taken  by  his  disciples  in  its  current  acceptation;  namely, 
in  the  sense  of  Covenant;  for  in  that  sense  alone  had  it 
hitherto  been  employed."  {Fairbairns  Hermeneutical 
Ilanual,  p.  343.) 

.Covenant  is  the  most  common  rendering  of  diatheca  in 
our  English  version  of  the  New  Testament,  and  is  always 
used  where  the  word  designates  the  Covenants  made  with 
the  Patriarchs  or  the  Covenant  entered  into  by  Israel  at 
Sinai;  and  as  Fairbairn  remarks, — "it  had  been  better,  in 
the  words  connected  with  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  have  re- 


28  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

tained  the  common  rendering,  and  read — This  is  the  new  Cov- 
enant in  my  blood; — since  all  should  then  have  readily- 
perceived,  that  the  Lord  pointed  to  the  Divine  Covenant, 
in  its  new  and  better  form,  as  contradistinguished  from 
that  which  had  been  brought  in  by  Moses,  and  which  had 
now  reached  the  end  of  its  appointment."  [Hermeneutical 
Manual,  p.  351.) 

Another,  and  a  weighty  reason  for  preferring  the  render- 
ing— New  Covenant  to  New  Testament  in  the  words  of  insti- 
tution is,  that  in  Jeremiah  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
where  this  New  Covenant  is  recorded,  diatheca  is  rendered 
Covenant.  "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Loed, 
when  I  will  make  a  new  Covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel, 
and  with  the  house  of  Judah ;  not  according  to  the  Cove- 
nant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers,"  &c.  (Jer.''xxxi.  31,  32.) 
''  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make 
a  new  Covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and  with  the 
house  of  Judah;  not  according  to  the  Covenant  I  made 
with  their  fathers,  ...  for  this  is  the  Covenant  that  I  will 
make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord;  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  minds,"  &c.  (Heb, 
viii.  8-10.)  Rendering  the  word  c^ia^Aeca  testament  in  one 
passage,  and  covenant  in  the  other,  serves  to  obscure  the 
connection  between  them,  to  the  reader  of  the  English 
Scriptures. 

This  Covenant  is  styled  new,  in  contrast  with  the  Cov- 
enant entered  into  at  Sinai,  which  in  the  days  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  was  ''  waxen  old,  and  was  ready  to  vanish 
away."  (Heb.  viii.  13.) 


§  14.   Tlie  Covenant  with  Abraham.  Gen.  xv.  8-18. 

"  And  he  (Abram)  said.  Lord  God,  whereby  shall  I  know 
that  I  shall  inherit  it  ?  And  he  said  unto  him.  Take  me 
a  heifer  of  three  years  old,  and  a  she-goat  of  three  yeaus 
old,  and  a  ram  of  three  years  old,  and  a  turtle  dove  and  a 
young  pigeon.  And  he  took  unto  him  all  these,  and 
divided  them  in  the  midst,  and  laid  each  piece  over  against 
another ;  but  the  birds  divided  he  not.  And  when  the 
fowls  came  down  upon  the  carcasses  Abram  drove  them 


The  Cocciiait  wi'li  Ahiuha.n.  29 

aAvny.  And  when  the  sun  was  going  down,  a  deep  sleep 
fell  upon  Abram,  and,  lo,  a  horror  of  great  darkness  fell 
upon  him.  And  he  said  unto  Abram,  Know  of  a  surety 
that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not 
theirs,  and  shall  serve  them;  and  they  shall  afflict  them 
four  hundred  years.  And  also,  that  nation  whom  they 
shall  serve,  will  I  judge ;  and  afterwards  shall  they  come 
out  with  great  substance.  And  thou  slialt  go  to  thy 
fathers  in  peace ;  thou  shalt  be  buried  in  a  good  old  age. 
But  in  the  fourth  generation  they  shall  come  hither  again; 
for  the  iniquity  of  the  Araoritcs  is  not  yet  full.  And  it 
came  to  pass,  that,  when  the  sun  went  down,  and  it  was 
dark,  behold  a  smoking  furnace,  and  a  burning  lamp  that 
passed  between  those  pieces.  In  that  same  day  the  Lokd 
made  a  covenant  with  Abram,  saying,  Unto  thy  seed  have 
I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  great 
river,  the  river  Euphrates."  (Gen.  xv.  8-18.) 

In  this  account  of  God's  covenanting  with  Abram,  let 
the  reader  notice  :  — 

1.  Whilst  sacrifices  had  been  offered  before  this,  and  a 
particular  record  of  the  fact  made  in  Scripture ;  as  in  the 
case  of  the  sacrifice  of  Cain  and  Abel  (Gen.  iii.)  and  that 
of  Noah,  after  the  flood  (Gen.  ix.) — this  is  the  first  in- 
stance in  which  the  Scriptures  tell  us  of  God  specifically 
directing  a  sacrifice,  and  prescribing  the  victims  to  be 
offered,  and  the  ceremonial  of  their  offering.  Of  the  origin 
of  sacrificial  worship  the  Scriptures  tell  us  nothing.  They 
record  the  offering  of  sacrifice,  shortly  after  the  Ml,  and 
of  God's  acceptance  of  sacrificial  worship,  as  rendered  by 
Abel  and  Noah;  and  from  this  it  has  been  inferred  that 
such  worship  was  instituted  by  God ;  but  they  contain  no 
particular  account  of  its  institution.  This  should  lead  us 
to  study  the  more  carefully  such  passages,  as  that  quoted 
above,  which  throw  light,  if  not  upon  the  origin,  yet  upon 
the  early  history  of  such  worship. 

2.  From  the  passage  quoted  above,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  fuller  development  of  sacrificial  worship  under 
the  law  of  Moses,  we  learn  "  that  the  idea  of  sacrifice  was 
a  complex  one,  involving  the  propitiatory,  the  dedicatory  " 
(or  covenanting)  "and the  eucharistic  elements.     Any  one 


30  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

of  tliem  taken  by  itself,  would  lead  to  error  and  supersti- 
tion. The  propitiatory  alone  would  tend  to  the  idea  of 
atonement  by  sacrifice  for  sin,  as  being  effectual  without 
any  condition  of  repentance  and  faith ;  the  self-dedicatory 
taken  alone,  ignores  the  barrier  of  sin  between  man  and 
God,  and  undermines  the  whole  idea  of  atonement ;  the 
eucharistic  alone  leads  to  the  notion  that  mere  gifts  can 
satisfy  God's  demand  of  service,  and  is  easily  perverted 
into  the  heathenish  attempt  "  to  bribe  "  God  by  vows  and 
offerings.  All  three,  probably,  were  more  or  less  implied 
in  each  sacrifice,  each  element  predominating  in  its  turn  ; 
all  must  be  kept  in  mind  in  considering  the  historical  in- 
fluence, the  spiritual  meaning,  and  the  typical  value  of 
sacrifice."  [A.  Barry,  in  Smith's  Dictionary,  Art.  Sac- 
rifice.) 

3.  In  the  case  before  us,  the  covenanting  element  in 
sacrifice  is  particularly  prominent.  This  appears,  not 
only  in  the  fact  that  the  sacrifice  is  offered  to  ratify  a 
covenant;  but  all  the  particular  ceremonial  is  ordered 
with  this  end  in  view. 

The  "  smoking  furnace  "  (or,  oven,  as  the  word  tannoor 
is  generally  rendered),  is  doubtless  intended  to  represent 
Jehovah,  as  the  executioner  of  righteous  judgment  upon 
his,  and  his  people's  enemies.  The  "  burning  lamp  " — 
"  lamp  of  fire,  the  Shechina,  as  Maimonides  explains  it, 
represented  Jehovah,  in  after .  times,  at  least,  in  his  guid- 
ing, protecting  providence  over  his  people.  These  ''passed 
between  the  pieces  "  of  the  divided  victims. 

"  In  early  times,  covenants  were  made  by  dividing  a 
beast,  and  by  the  parties  covenanting  passing  between  the 
parts  of  the  beast  so  divided,  signifying  that  so  should 
they  be  cut  asunder  who  broke  the  covenant."  (Patrick's 
Commentary,  in  loc.)  That  this  method  of  ratifying  a 
covenant  was  practised  in  Israel  in  after  times,  we  have 
proof  in  the  writings  of  Jeremiah.  "  And  I  will  give  the 
men  that  have  transgressed  my  covenant,  which  have  not 
performed  the  words  of  the  covenant  which  they  had 
made  before  me,  when  they  cut  the  calf  in  twain,  and 
passed  between  the  parts  thereof,  the  Princes  of  Judah, 
and  the  Princes  of  Jerusalem,  the  eunuchs,  and  the  priests, 


The  Covenant  at  Sinai.  31 

and  all  the  people  of  the  land,  which  passed  between  the 
parts  of  the  calf;  I  will  even  give  them  into  the  hand  of 
their  enemies,  and  into  the  hands  of  them  that  seek  their 
life."  (Jer.  xxxiv.  18-20.) 

This  transaction,  though  expressly  styled  a  covenant  in 
ver.  18,  yet  is  it  rather  a  promise  on  the  part  of  God,  and 
for  this  reason  it  was,  probably,  that  his  symbol  alone 
passed  between  the  parts  of  the  divided  animals.  Abram 
had  asked  a  sign, — "  Lord  God,  whereby  shall  I  know 
that  I  shall  inherit  it  ?  " — And  God  was  pleased  to  give 
him  a  sign,  by  which,  according  to  Eastern  ideas,  he  bound 
himself  to  the  fulfillment  of  his  promise.  That  there  was 
a  corresponding  obligation  on  the  part  of  Abram,  implied 
though  not  expressed,  all  will  agree  : — and  for  this  reason, 
w^hilst  its  ceremonial  of  ratification  was  that  belonging  to 
a  promise,  the  transaction  is  styled  a  covenant. 

§  15.    TJie  Covenant  at  Sinai.  Ex.  xxiv.  3-8. 

"  And  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the  words  of 
the  Lord,  and  all  the  judgments ;  and  all  the  people  an- 
swered with  one  voice,  and  said,  All  the  words  which  the 
Lord  hath  said  will  we  do.  And  Moses  wrote  all  the 
words  of  the  Lord,  and  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and 
builded  an  altar  under  the  hill,  and  twelve  pillars,  accord- 
ing to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  And  he  sent  young 
men  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  offered  burnt  offer- 
ings, and  sacrificed  peace  offerings  of  oxen  unto  the  Lord. 
And  Moses  took  half  the  blood,  and  put  it  in  basins ;  and 
half  of  the  blood  he  sprinkled  on  the  altar.  And  he  took 
the  book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  in  the  audience  of  the 
jieople  ;  and  they  said.  All  that  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we 
do,  and  be  obedient.  And  Moses  took  the  blood  and 
sprinkled  it  on  the  people,  and  said,  Behold  the  blood  of 
the  covenant,  which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you  con- 
cerning all  these  words." 

"  Whereupon  neither  the  first  testament  {diatheca)  was 
dedicated  without  blood.  For  when  Moses  had  spoken 
every  precept  to  all  the  people  according  to  the  law,  he 
took  the  blood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and 
scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and 


32  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

all  the  people ;  saying,  this  is  the  blood  of  the  testaraeLt 
{diatheca — covenant,  in  Ex.  xxiv.  8,  from  which  the  words 
are  quoted)  which  God  hath  enjoined  unto  you."  (Heb.  ix. 
18-20).  On  the  word  engkainidzo,  here  rendered  "  dedi- 
cated," Bloomfield  remarks,  "  it  is  used  in  1  Kings  viii. 
63,  respecting  the  dedication  of  the  temple.  And  as  the 
dedication  of  any  building  was  celebrated  by  solemn  rites, 
which  served  to  ratify  the  possession  of  the  thing,  so  the 
word  came  to  simply  mean  ratif)/  as  applied  to  covenants." 
(Blooynfield's  Nciv  Testament,  Heb.  ix.  18.) 

It  was  this  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  Israel,  en- 
tered into  at  Sinai,  which  established  the  Theocracy,  and 
by  which  Israel  became  "  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  the 
Lord  above  all  people, — a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy 
nation."  (Ex.  xix.  5,  6.)  And  this  is  the  covenant  which, 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  is  designated  the  old,  in 
contrast  with  the  neio  covenant,  of  which  our  Lord  speaks 
in  the  institution  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper. 

This  covenant,  like  that  with  Abram,  already  examined, 
was  ratified  by  sacrifice,  though  the  ceremonial  of  ratifica- 
tion was  different.  The  particular  act  by  which  Israel 
was  consecrated,  set  apart  as  a  "  holy  nation,"  a  people  in 
covenant  with  the  Lord,  was  Moses'  sprinkling  them  with 
the  blood  of  the  sacrifice. 

The  words  used  by  Moses  on  this  occasion  are  very 
similar  to  those  used  by  our  Lord,  when  he  gave  the 
cup  to  the  disciples,  at  the  institution  of  the  sacrament 
of  the  Supper.  Moses  says — "  Behold  the  blood  of 
the  covenant  which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you." 
All  expositors  understand  him  to  mean  by  "  the  blood 
of  the  covenant,"  the  blood  by  which  the  covenant 
is  ratified.  So,  when  our  Lord  uses  the  words,  "  this  cup 
is  the  New  Testament  (covenant)  in  my  blood,"  he  must 
be  understood  to  mean, — the  wine  in  this  cup,  which 
represents  my  blood,  is  given,  and  drunk  in  ratification  of 
the  new  covenant. 

§16.  "  The  salt  of  the  covenant  of  thy  God." 
"  Gather  my  saints  together  unto  me  ;  those  that  have 
made  a  covenant  with  me  by  sacrifice."  (Ps,  1.  5.) 


"  Vain  Oblations."  33 

"  Every  sacrifice  shall  be  salted  with  salt."  (Mark  ix. 
49.) 

"  Neither  shalt  thou  suffer  the  salt  of  the  covenant  of 
thy  God  to  be  lacking  from"  thy  meat  offering ;  with  all 
thine  offerings  thou  shalt  offer  salt."  (Lev.  ii.  13.) 

In  that  fullest  development  of  sacrificial  worship  which 
God  gave  to  Israel  by  Moses,  the  covenanting  element  is 
expressed  by  the  use  of  salt.  "  The  sacrifices  being  God's 
feasts,  and  they  that  did  partake  of  them  his  guests,  who 
did,  in  a  manner,  eat  and  drink  with  him  at  his  table,  the 
salt  that  is  cast  upon  all  sacrifices,  is  called  the  salt  of  the 
covenant,  to  signify,  that  as  men  were  wont  to  make  cove- 
nants by  eating  and  drinking  together  (where  salt  is  never 
wasting  at  their  tables,  but  a  necessary  appendix  to  any 
and  everv  feast)  so  God,  by  these  sacrifices,  and  the  feasts 
upon  them,  did  ratify  and  confirm  his  covenant  with  those 
that  did  partake  of  them."  (Fatnek's  Commentary  on 
Lev.  ii.  13.) 

Among  Eastern  nations,  salt,  because  of  its  preservative 
])ropertie3,  has  long  been  an  emblem  of  perpetuity.  For 
this  reason,  as  well  as  because  of  its  use  in  sacrifices  to  re- 
present the  covenanting  element,  a  perpetual  covenant  is 
in  Scripture  spoken  of  as  a  "  covenant  of  salt."  "  It  is  a 
covenant  of  salt  forever  before  the  Lord  unto  thee  and 
to  thy  seed  with  thee."  (Numb,  xviii.  19.)  "  The  Lord 
God  of  Israel  gave  the  kingdom  over  Israel  to  David  for- 
ever, even  to  him  and  to  his  sons  by  a  covenant  of  salt." 
(2  Chron.  xiii.  5.) 

§17.  ''Vain  oblations." 

"  To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices 
unto  me?  saith  the  Lord.  I  am  full  of  the  burnt  offerings 
of  rams,  and  of  the  fat  of  fed  beasts ;  and  I  delight  not  in 
the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of  he-goats.  When 
ye  come  to  appear  before  me,  who  hath  required  this  at 
your  hands,  to  tread  my  courts  ?  Bring  no  more  vain  ob- 
lations ;  incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me ;  the  new- 
moons  and  Sabbaths,  the  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot 
away  with  ;  it  is  iuiquitv,  even  the  solemn  meeting.  Your 
2*. 


34  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

new-moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my  soul  liatetli ;  they 
are  a  trouble  unto  me ;  I  am  weary  to  bear  them.  And 
when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide  mine  eyes 
from  you ;  yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I  will  not 
hear :  Your  hands  are  full  of  blood.  Wash  ye,  make  you 
clean ;  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine 
eyes;  cease  to  do  evil;  learn  to  do  well ;  seek  judgment; 
relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead  for  the 
widow.  Come  now,  and  let  us  reason  together,  saith  the 
Lord :  though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  as 
white  as  snow  ;  though  they  be  red  like  crimson,  they  shall 
be  as  wool.  If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient,  ye  shall  eat  the 
good  of  the  land ;  but  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel,  ye  shall  be  de- 
voured with  the  sword ;  for  the  mouth  of  the  Loed  hath 
spoken  it."  (Isa.  i.  11-20).  "  For  I  desired  niercy,  and 
not  sacrifice ;  and  the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt- 
offerings.  But  they  like  men  have  transgressed  the  cove- 
nant;  there  have  they  dealt  treacherously  against  me." 
(Hosea,  vi.  6,  7.) 

The  ground  of  God's  rejection  of  the  sacrificial  worship 
of  Israel  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  as  expressed  in  the  words 
of  that  prophet  quoted  above,  is,  that  they  have  forgotten, 
or  utterlv  disregarded  the  covenanting  character  of  the 
service.  They  held  fast  to  the  propitiatory  character  of  the 
service;  they  had  pushed  this  to  the  extreme  of  believing 
that  the  "  sacrifices  of  bulls  and  of  goats  "  made  true  atone- 
ment for  sin,  instead  of  simply  symbolizing  such  atone- 
ment, to  be  made  in  God's  good  time,  by  the  one, -only, 
true  sacrifice,  of  which  theirs  was  but  a  "  shadow."  They 
held  fast  to  the  eucharistic  character  of  the  service ;  not 
in  the  true  spirit  of  it,  but  in  that  expressed  in  the  words 
— "  God,  I  thank  thee,  that  I  am  not  as  other  men  are, 
extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers,  or  even  as  this  publican. 
I  fast  twice  in  the  week,  I  give  tithes  of  all  that  I  pos- 
sess." (Luke  xviii.  11,  12).  But  they  gave  no  heed  to 
the  fact,  that  sacrifice  was  a  covenanting  rite,  in  which 
the  oficrer  bound  himself  "to  do  all  that  the  Lord  had 
said,  and  to  be  obedient."  (Ex.  xxiv.  7.)  For  this  reason, 
God  declares,  that  he  has  no  delight  in  their  sacrifices, — 
their  oblations  are   vain, — their  incense   an  abomination, 


The  New  Covenant.  35 

— their  solemn  meetings  an  iniquity,  tlieir  appointed  feast, 
something  which  his  soul  hateth. 

§  IS.  Relation  of  the  Lord's  Siqjper  to  the  Old  Testament 
Sacrifice. 

The  Lord's  Supper,  under  the  New  Testament  dispen- 
sation, sustains  very  much  the  same  relation  to  the  one 
only  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin,  offered  by  Christ  upon  Cal- 
vary, that  the  bloody  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  did. 
Neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  make  any  true  atone- 
ment for  sin,  or  is  in  itself  a  proper  subject  of  thanksgiv- 
ing to  God.  Both  alike  are  intended  to  keep  alive  in  the 
world  a  knowledge  of  the  one  only  true,  propitiatoiy  sacri- 
fice, and  to  present  that  sacrifice  in  lively  symbol,  to  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  Both  alike  are  records  of  the  great 
event  consummated  on  the  cross, — the  one  the  record  of 
prophecy ;  the  other,  that  of  history.  Both  alike  are 
shadows  of  "  Christ  crucified," — the  one  a  morning  shadow, 
stretching  away  in  advance  of  the  coming  event;  the  other, 
an  evening  shadow,  belonging  to  these  "  last  times,"  and 
bearing  witness  to  an  event  that  has  already  occurred. 

Seeing  then,  that  the  covenanting  element  entered  so 
largely  into  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  sacrifices,  and  was 
by  the  ceremonial  which  God  estabhshed  in  Moses'  day, 
and  by  the  words  of  his  prophets,  kept  before  the  mind  of 
the  Church,  it  can  cause  us  no  surprise,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, is  just  what  we  have  a  right  to  expect,  that  this 
same  covenanting  element  should  enter  largely  into  the 
true  idea  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  is  plainly  taught  us,  in 
the  words — "  This  cup  is  the  New  Covenant  in  niy  blood." 
And  further,  as  we  learn  the  flict  that  the  sacrificial  wor- 
ship of  the  Old  Testament  Church,  became  "  a  vain  obla- 
tion," an  "  abomination  "  to  the  Lord,  through  the  wor- 
shipper's disregarding  its  covenanting  character  : — may  it 
not  be  well  for  us  to  take  care  that  our  worship  in  the 
sacrament  of  the  Supper  does  not  become  profitless  in  the 
same  way. 

§  19.   The  New  Covenmit.  Heb.  viii.  8-12. 
"Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will 


36  Tlie  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Siqoper. 

make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with 
the  house  of  Judah :  Not  according  to  the  covenant  that 
I  made  with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  wlien  I  took  them 
by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  be- 
cause they  continued  not  in  my  covenant,  and  I  regarded 
them  not,  saith  the  Lord.  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I 
will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith 
the  Lord ;  I  will  put  my  laws  in  their  minds,  and  write 
them  in  their  hearts ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and 
they  shall  be  to  me  a  people.  And  they  shall  not  teach 
every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  say- 
ing, know  the  Lord ;  for  all  shall  know  me,  from  the  least 
to  the  greatest.  For  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  unright- 
eousness, and  their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will  I  remem- 
ber no  more." 

The  substance  of  this  new  covenant  is  here,  expressed 
in  brief,  in  the  words,  "  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people."  In  this  covenant  God  binds 
himself  to  Israel — the  true  Israel — to  the  one  who  is  "  of 
the  faith  of  Abraham."  (Rom.  iv.  16) : — 

1.  To  grant  him  the  full  forgiveness  of  all  sin ;  a  for- 
giveness so  complete  that  his  "  sins  shall  be  no  more 
remembered."  They  shall  not  be  remembered  against 
him  in  this  present  life,  where  unforgiven  sin  is  the  great 
obst.icle  to  the  bestowment  of  God's  blessings,  both  tem- 
poral and  spiritual,  and  the  one  cause  of  enmity  between 
God  and  man.  They  shall  not  be  remembered  against 
him  in  the  day  of  judgment,  when  the  guilt  of  unforgiven 
sin  shall  call  down  upon  the  head  of  the  sinner  the  full 
measure  of  divine  vengeance,  and  the  remembrance  of  un- 
forgiven sin  shall  cover  the  sinner  '^  with  shame  and  ever- 
lasting contempt."  The  words  of  the  covenant  are, — "I 
will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins 
and  their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more." 

2.  To  grant  him  renewing  and  sanctifying  grace.  '''  I 
will  put  my  laws  in  their  minds,  and  write  them  in  their 
hearts ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to 
me  a  people."  It  is  an  easy  thing  to  comprehend  the  law 
of  God, — with  the  understanding — and  the  word  law  is 
here  evidently  used  in  its  widest  sense,  as  embracing  the 


TJie  New  Covenant.  37 

gospel,  or  new  law,  as  well  as  what  is  distinctively  termed 
the  law— a  use  of  which  we  have  an  illustration  in 
cxix.  Psalra — but  by  no  human  agency  can  that  law  be 
written  in  man's  heart.  The  more  fully  the  natural  man 
comprehends  that  law,  especially  as  to  its  exceeding  breadth 
and  holiness,  the  more  thoroughly  is  his  heart's  hatred 
aroused  against  it.  When  we  study  God's  character, 
especially  the  character  of  God  in  Christ,  as  set  forth  in 
Scripture,  we  are  constrained  to  acknowledge  that  it  is  a 
})erfect  character — that  he  is  worthy  to  be  loved  with  the 
heart's  warmest  affections ;  but  this  conviction  awakens 
no  love  to  him  in  the  sinner's  "  heart  of  stone."  Who 
shall  take  away  that  "  heart  of  stone  "  and  give  instead 
thereof,  a  "  heart  of  flesh  ?  "  God  alone  can  do  this.  And 
it  is  just  this  which  he  covenants  to  do,  for  Christ's  sake : 
— to  become,  not  in  name  and  in  form  alone,  but  in  deed 
and  in  truth,  and  to  our  souls'  apprehension,  "  our  God  " 
— the  God  we  serve,  the  God  we  trust,  the  God  we  love. 

3.  To  extend  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel  until  it  shall 
cover  the  whole  earth.  "  And  they  shall  not  teach  every 
man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying, 
Know  the  Lord ;  for  all  shall  know  me,  from  the  least 
unto  the  greatest."  To  "  disciple  all  nations  "  is  the  work 
which  Christ  has  given  his  Church  to  do  for  him  in  the 
world.  To  do  this  effectually,  the  wisdom,  and  eloquence 
and  pious  zeal  of  an  Apostle  avails  nothing,  if  alone.  Paul 
may  plant,  and  Apollos  water,  but  it  is  God  alone  who  can 
give  the  increase.  And  it  is  just  this  which  in  the  new 
covenant  he  binds  himself  to  do. 

Such  are  the  obligations  of  the  new  covenant  on  God's 
part;  and  they  are  the  only  obligations  expressly  men- 
tioned in  the  text  of  the  covenant.  But  that  there  are 
corresponding  obligations  on  the  part  of  man  fairly  im- 
plied, no  one  can  doubt.  The  very  term  covenant,  and  it 
is  a  term  which  God  has  chosen  to  designate  the  transac- 
tion, places  this  beyond  reasonable  question, 

1.  Does  God  as  "  my  God,"  covenant  to  forgive  me  my 
sins ;  then  as  one  of  "  his  people,"  in  accepting  the  cove- 
nant, I  bind  myself,  to  look  to,  to  come  to  him,  and  to  him 
only  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin. 


38  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Sapper. 

2.  Does  God,  as  "  my  God,"  covenant  to  write  his  law 
upon  my  heart;  then  as  one  of  "his  people,"  in  accepting 
the  covenant,  I  bind  myself,  turning  away  from  every 
other  hope,  to  bring  my  ''  heart  of  stone  "  to  him,  that  he 
may  do  for  me  what  I  cannot  do,  and  what  no  mortal 
power  can  do  for  me.  And  if,  as  he  teaches  me  in  Scrip- 
ture, I  am  to  receive  this  grace  as  his  blessing  upon 
"  means  of  grace,"  I  bind  myself  to  a  diligent  use  of  these 
means. 

3.  Does  God,  as  "my  God,"  covenant  to  bless  with 
abundant  success  the  effort  to  disciple  all  nations ;  then  as 
one  of  "  his  people,"  in  accepting  the  covenant,  I  bind  my- 
self, hopefully  to  labor,  believingly  to  pray,  that  his  king- 
dom may  come  throughout  the  world. 

Such  is  the  new  covenant, — that  of  which  our  Lord 
spake,  when  taking  the  cup  he  said,  "  This  cup  is  the  new 
covenant  in  my  blood, — drink  ye  all  of  it." — Such  are  the 
obligations  acknowledged  as  binding  upon  God  and  the 
communicant,  when  the  wine,  the  symbol  of  the  blood  shed 
upon  Calvary,  is  given  and  drunk  in  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 


The  Lord's  Supper  a  Eucharistic  Bite.  39 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE   lord's   supper  A   EUCHARISTIC   IlITE. 

§20.  Origin  of  the  name  Eucharist,  g'^1.  Derelopment  of  Sacrificial  Worship  in 
Moses' law.  J  22.  The  Passover,  as  observed  in  our  Lord's  day.  i'2i.  Tlie 
N«w  a  better  Covenant  than  the  Old. 

§  20.  Origin  of  the  name  eucharist. 

"  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  it  ,  .  .  And  lie  took 
the  cup  and  gave  thanks."  (Matt.  xxvi.  26,  27,  and  Mark 
xiv.  22,  23.) 

"  And  he  took  bread  and  gave  thanks ;  .  .  .  likewise 
also,  the  cup."     (Luke  xxii.  19,  20.) 

"  He  took  bread,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  .  .  . 
After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup."  (1  Cor. 
xi.  24,  25.) 

The  two  w^ords,  eulogeo,  to  bless,  and  eucharisteo,  to 
give  thanks,  are  both  used  to  designate  the  act  of  devo- 
tion, which,  in  our  Lord's  institution  of  the  Supper,  pre- 
ceded the  giving  of  the  bread  to  his  disciples  ;  the  first  by- 
Matthew  and  Mark,  the  other  by  Luke  and  Paul.  The 
same  peculiarity  in  the  use  of  these  words  appears  in  the 
account  of  the  miracle  of  feeding  the  five  thousand : 
Matthew  writes,  "  And  looking  up  to  heaven,  he  blessed, 
and  brake,"  (Matt.  xiv.  19,)  while  John  writes,  "And 
when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  distributed  to  the  disciples." 
(Jno.  vi.  11.)  What  our  Lord  really  did  on  this  occasion 
was  both  to  give  thanks  and  bless.  As  Brown  remarks, 
"The  one  act  includes  the  other.  He  'gave  thanks,'  not 
80  much  here  for  the  literal  bread,  as  for  that  higher  food 
which  was  couched  under  it ;  and  he  '  blessed  '  it  as  the 
ordained  channel  of  spiritual  nourishment."  {Brown's 
Cominentary ,  Luke  xxii.  19.) 


40  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

From  the  Greek  word  eucharisteo,  here  used  by  Matthew" 
and  Mark,  respecting  our  Lord's  consecration  of  the  cup, 
and  by  Luke  and  Paul,  respecting  his  consecration  of  the 
bread  also,  we  have  the  word  Eucharist,  which  word  has 
been  used  as  a  name  for  the  Lord's  Supper  from  a  very 
early  date ;  and  in  a  large  portion  of  Christendom  it  is  the 
common  name  of  the  ordinance  to-day.  As  its  etymology 
points  out,  it  is  used  to  express  the  element  of  thanksgiv- 
ing which  enters  so  largely  into  the  sacrament ; — thanks- 
giving to  God  for  all  the  benefits  which  are  signified  and 
sealed  to  the  devout  partaker  in  it. 

The  objection  to  its  use  as  the  common  name  of  the  sac- 
rament, is  that  while  it  expresses  a  truth,  it  does  not  ex- 
press the  whole  truth..  The  ordinance  is  a  Eucharist,  but 
it  is  at  the  same  time  more  than  a  Eucharist.  It  is  a 
memorial ;  it  is  replete  with  symbolic  instruction ;  it  is  a 
covenanting  rite,  and  a  communion.  The  name  commu- 
nion, as  the  common  name  of  the  sacrament,  is  objectiona- 
ble on  the  same  ground.  .  The  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  Scrip- 
tural name,  and  one  to  which  no  objection  on  this  ground 
can  be  raised ;  and  so,  is  to  be  preferred  to  either  of  the 
others. 


§  21.  Development  of  Sacrificial  Worship  in  Moses'  Law. 

In  Gen.  iii.  21,  we  read — "  The  Lord  God  made  coats 
of  skin  and  clothed  them,"  i.  e.,  Adam  and  Eve.  On  this 
record.  Bush  remai'ks  :  "  That  the  beasts  whose  skins 
were  allotted  for  a  covering  to  our  first  parents  on  this  oc- 
casion, had  been  slain,  it  is  natural  to  suppose ;  and  there 
were  no  purposes  for  which  they  could  have  been  slain, 
except  those  of  food,  or  sacrifice,  or  clothing.  That  they 
were  not  slain  for  food  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the 
grant  of  animal  food  was  not  made  till  the  days  of  Noah. 
(See  Gen.  ix.  3.)  Neither  can  it  be  admitted  that  they 
were  slain  merely  for  clothing ;  since  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  Adam  would  immediately  after  the  sentence  of 
the  divine  displeasure,  have  dared  to  kill  God's  creatures 
without  his  permission.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  God  should 
order  them   to   be  slain  solely  for  their  skins,  when    man 


Development  of  Sacrificial  Worsldj)  in  Hoses'  Laio.  41 

could  have  been  supplied  with  garments  made  of  other 
materials.  It  follows  then  that  they  must  have  been  slain 
with  a  view  to  sacrifice.  This  alone  supplies  an  adequate 
reason.  The  lohole  of  the  animal  (as  the  primitive  offer- 
ings were  all  holocausts)  would  here  be  devoted  to  the  use 
of  religion,  except  the  skin,  which  would  be  employed  for 
purposes  of  clothing.  And  even  this  might  not  be  with- 
out its  moral  and  religious  ends;  for  while  Adam  and 
Eve  thought  only  of  a  covering  for  their  bodies,  God 
pointed  out  to  them  a  covering  for  their  souls.  They 
were  despoiled  of  their  original  righteousness,  and  they 
needed  a  robe  to  cover  their  naked  souls,  so  that  they 
might  again  stand  before  God  '  without  either  spot  or 
blemish.'  We  undoubtedly  see,  then,  in  this  incident,  the 
first  uistitution  of  animal  sacrifice ;  for  that  such  a  rite 
should  have  originated  in  mere  human  device,  cannot  be 
maintained  with  any  show  of  reason.  How  should  it  have 
entered  into  the  mind  of  man  to  imagine  that  the  blood  of 
a  beast  could  make  satisfaction  to  God  for  sin?  What  con- 
ceivable connection  is  there,  apart  from  divine  appoint- 
ment, between  the  blood  of  a  brute  animal  and  the  sins  of 
a  human  being?  Indeed,  there  was  much  more  reason  to 
think  that  God  would  have  been  displeased  with  the  un- 
authorized destruction  of  his  creatures,  than  that  he  would 
so  accept  it  as  to  forgive  iniquity  on  account  of  it.  Such 
an  offering  without  a  divine  warrant  would  have  been,  at 
best,  a  mere  act  of  superstitious  will-worship,  for  which 
no  one  could  have  promised  himself  acceptance ;  for  what 
superstition  can  be  more  gross  than  to  believe  without 
any  authority  for  so  doing,  that  God  will  transfer  the  sins 
of  the  sacrificer  to  the  sacrificed,  and  that  thus  the  sa- 
crificer  himself  shall  be  pardoned?  The  very  Pagans 
themselves  judged  more  rationally,  for  they  are  unanimous 
in  ascribing  tha  origin  of  sacrifice  to  a  divine  command." 
{Biish's  Notes  on  Genesis.) 

In  the  above  extract  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  pro- 
perly divine  origin  of  sacrificial  worship  is  clearly  and 
concisely  presented.  Whether  we  accept  it  as  perfectly 
satisfactory  or  not,  this  much  the  express  record  of  Scrip- 
ture places  beyond  doubt :  That  at  a  very  early  date  God 


42  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

accepted  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  Abel  (see  Gen.  iv.)  and  so 
gave  a  public  and  authoritative  sanction  to  sacrificial  wor- 
ship :  and  further,  that  this  worship  continued  in  use, 
with  divine  approval,  from  Abel's  day  to  the  day  of 
Christ. 

At  first  sacrificial  worship  would  seem  to  have  been 
very  simple  in  its  form  and  ceremonial.  The  offerings  of 
Abel  and  Noah  were  holocausts,  the  sacrificial  victim 
being  consumed  entire  upon  God's  altar.  In  entering  into 
covenant  with  Abram,  as  we  have  seen  (§  14)  God  added 
to  the  ceremonial  in  common  use,  certain  rites,  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  out  more  distinctly  the  covenanting 
element  in  the  transaction  : — but  it  was  not  until  Moses' 
day,  and  in  Moses'  law  that  sacrificial  worship  received  its 
full  development. 

As  already  remarked,  "  the  idea  of  sacrifice  is  a  com- 
plex one,  involving  the  propitiatory,  the  dedicatory  (or 
covenanting),  and  the  eucharistic  elements ; "  (see  §  14.) 
And  all  three  of  these  elements,  enter  less  or  more  dis- 
tinctly into  the  true  idea  of  sacrifice  of  every  kind. 
Whilst  this  is  true,  it  is  true  at  the  same  time  that  in  the 
different  kinds  of  sacrifice,  and  in  the  ceremonial  estab- 
lished in  Moses'  law,  each  of  these  several  elements 
receives  particular  prominence  in  particular  sacrifices,  and 
in  particular  ways. 

"All  had  relation,  under  different  aspects,  to  a  Cove- 
nant between  God  and  man  :" — and  hence  the  law, — inas- 
much as  salt  was  chosen  to  represent  this  covenanting 
element,  —  "every  sacrifice  shall  be  salted  with  salt." 
(:Mark  ix.  49.) 

"The  SIN-OFFERING  represented  the  Covenant  as  broken 
by  man,  and  as  knit  together  again,  by  God's  appoint- 
ment, through  'shedding  of  blood.'  Its  characteristic 
ceremony  was  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  before  the  veil 
of  the  sanctuary,  the  putting  some  of  it  on  the  horns  of 
the  altar  of  incense,  and  the  pouring  out  of  all  the  rest  at 
the  foot  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering.  The  shedding  of 
blood,  the  symbol  of  life,  signified  that  the  death  of  the 
offender  was  deserved  for  sin,  but  that  the  death  of  the 
victim  was  accepted  for  his  death  by  the  ordinance  of 


The  Passover  as  Observed  in  Our  Lord's  Day.      43 

God's  mercy.  Beyond  all  doubt,  the  siu-offering  distinct- 
ly witnessed  that  sin  existed  in  man,  that  'the  wages  of 
sin  was  death/  and  that  God  had  provided  an  atonement 
by  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  an  appointed  victim." 

"  The  Meat-offeriyig ,  the  peace  or  thank-offering, 
the  first-fruits,  &c.,  were  simply  offerings  to  God  of  his 
own  best  gifts,  as  a  sign  of  thankful  homage,  and  as  a 
means  of  maintaining  his  service,  and  his  servants.  The 
characteristic  ceremony  in  the  peace-offering  was  the 
eating  of  the  flesh  by  the  sacrificer""  [A.  Barry,  in 
Smith's  Dictionary.  Art.  Sacrifice.)  That  the  peace- 
offering  was  especially  appropriated  to  eucharistic  services 
appears,  not  only  from  its  name,  jocacc-offering,  the  peace 
intended  being  peace  between  God  and  man,  which  must 
ever  be  a  cause  of  thanksgiving ;  but  from  such  Scriptures 
ns  Lev.  vii.  12.  "  If  he  offer  it  (the  peace-offering,  ver. 
11)  for  a  thanksgiving,  then  shall  he  offer  with  the  sacri- 
fice of  thanksgiving  unleavened  cakes,"  &c. 

§  22.   The  Passover  as  observed  in  our  Lord's  day. 

The  following  particulars  respecting  the  Passover,  as 
observed  in  our  Lord's  day,  are  condensed  from  the  excel- 
lent article  on  the  subject  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary.  In 
Ex.  xii.  and  xiii.  there  are  not  only  distinct  references  to 
the  observance  of  the  festival  in  future  ages,  but  several 
injunctions  which  were  evidently  not  intended  for  the  first 
Passover,  and  which  indeed  could  not  possibly  have  been 
observed  then.  In  the  later  notices  of  the  festival  in  the 
books  of  the  Law  particulars  are  added  which  appear  as 
modifications  of  the  original  institution:  e.g.,  in  Lev.  xxiii. 
the  offering  of  the  first-fruits  is  directed  to  be  observed 
in  connection  with  the  Passover.  Hence,  it  is  not  with- 
out reason  that  the  Jewish  writers  have  laid  great  stress 
on  the  distinction  between  the  "  Egyptian  Passover  "  and 
the  "  perpetual  Passover." 

Two  important  peculiarities  of  the  Passover  as  observed 
in  our  Lord's  day,  are  .  (1)  Four  cups  of  wine  were  drunk 
on  the  occasion.  There  is  no  mention  of  wine  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Passover  in  the  Pentateuch  :  but  the  Mishna 


44  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

strictly  enjoined  that  there  should  never  be  less  than  four 
cups  of  it  provided  at  the  Paschal  meal,  even  of  the  poor- 
est Israelite.  Two  of  them  appear  to  be  distinctly  men- 
tioned in  Luke  xxii.  17,  20.  "  The  cup  of  blessing"  (1  Cor. 
X.  IG,)  was  probably  the  latter  one  of  these,  and  is  gene- 
rally considered  to  have  been  the  third  of  the  series,  after 
which  a  grace  was  said ;  though  a  comparison  of  Luke 
xxii.  20  (where  it  is  called  "  the  cup  after  supper  ")  with 
the  Mishna  (Pes.  x.  7,)  and  the  designation  of  the  "  cup  of 
the  Hallel,"  might  rather  suggest  that  it  was  the  fourth 
and  last  cup.  (2)  The  Hallel :  The  service  of  praise 
(Heb.  hallel — praise)  sung  at  the  Passover,  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  law.  It  consisted  of  the  series  of  Psalms 
cxiii.-cxviii.  The  first  portion,  comprising  Ps.  cxiii.  and 
cxiv.,  was  sung  in  the  early  part  of  the  meal,  and  the 
second  part  after  the  fourth  cup  of  wine.  This  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  the  "  hymn  "  sung  by  our  Lord  and 
his  Apostles,  as  mentioned  in  Matt.  xxvi.  30,  Mark  xiv. 
26. 

The  feast  of  the  Passover  must,  from  the  first,  have 
partaken  largely  of  a  "  eucharistic  character.  (1)  It  com- 
memorated Israel's  deliverance  from  bondage  in  Egypt, — 
a  deliverance  from  a  cruel  and  bitter  bondage — a  deliver- 
ance resulting  in  their  possession  of  a  good  land — the  land 
of  promise.  (2)  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  to  the  "  men 
of  faith,"  this  deliverance  was  typical  of  a  deliverance 
from  a  more  cruel  bondage  than  that  of  Egypt; — a  de- 
liverance to  result  in  the  possession  of  a  better  land  than 
the  earthly  Canaan,  even  the  heavenly :  and  for  both 
these  reasons,  the  feast  would   naturally  be  eucharistic. 

By  uniting  the  feast  of  the  First-fruits  with  the  Pass- 
over, God  added  another  element  of  thanksgiving.  The 
gathering  of  the  harvest  has  been  an  occasion  for  thanks- 
giving in  every  country  and  in  every  age. 

In  the  Hallel,  the  service  of  song  used  on  the  occasion, 
the  eucharistic  character  of  the  feast  comes  out  prominently 
in  such  words  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  as  the  following  : 
— "  What  shall  I  render  to  the  Lord  for  all  his  benefits 
toward  me  ?  I  will  take  the  cup  of  salvation,  and  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord.     I  will  pay  ray  vows  unto 


The  New  "  a  Better  Covenant "  than  the  Old.       45 

the  Lord  now  in  tho  presence  of  all  his  people.  Precious 
in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  is  the  death  of  his  saints.  O 
Lord,  truly  I  am  thy  servant;  and  the  son  of  thy  hand- 
maid ;  thou  hast  loosed  my  bonds.  I  will  offer  to  thee  the 
sacrifice  of  thanksgiving,  and  will  call  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord.  I  will  pay  my  vows  unto  the  Lord  now  in 
the  presence  of  all  his  people.  In  the  courts  of  the  Lord's 
house,  in  the  midst  of  thee,  0  Jerusalem.  Praise  ye  the 
Lord."  (Ps.  cxvi.  12-19.)  "I  will  praise  thee;  for  thou 
hast  heard  me,  and  art  become  my  salvation.  The  stone 
which  the  builders  refused  has  become  the  head  stone  of 
the  corner.  This  is  the  Lord's  doing;  it  is  marvellous 
in  our  eyes.  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made ; 
we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it.  Save  now,  I  beseech 
thee,  0  Lord  ;  0  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  send  now  pros- 
perity. Blessed  be  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord;  we  have  blessed  you  out  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord.  God  is  the  Lord,  which  hath  shewed  us  light : 
bind  the  sacrifice  with  cords,  even  unto  the  horns  of  the 
altar.  Thou  art  my  God,  and  I  will  praise  thee  ;  thou  art 
my  God,  I  will  exalt  thee.  0  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord  ; 
for  he  is  good,  for  his  mercy  endureth  forever."  (Ps.  cxviii. 
21-20.)  In  the  words  of  these  Psalms  which  our  Lord  and 
liis  disciples  sang  at  the  close  of  this  first  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  we  see,  not  only  the  eucharistic  character 
of  the  service,  but  good  reasons  why  it  should  have  that 
character. 

§  23.   The  New  "  a  better  Covenant "  than  the  Old. 

"  He  (Christ)  is  the  mediator  of  a  better  covenant,  which 
was  established  upon  better  promises."  Heb.  viii.  6. 

The  Covenant,  here  spoken  of  as  "a  better  covenant,"  is 
the  same  which  in  vs.  7  is  called  the  "second,"  and  in  vs. 
8  ''the  new  covenant;"  and  is  undoubtedly  the  one  of 
which  our  Lord  spoke  when  he  gave  the  cup  to  his  dis- 
ciples— "  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  (covenant)  in  my 
l>lood."  The  covenant  with  which  it  is  compared  is  styled 
"  the  first  covenant"  in  vs.  7,  the  "old  covenant"  in  vs. 
13,  and  in  vs.  9  is  described  as  "the  covenant  God  made 


46  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

with  the  fathers,  when  he  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  i.  e.,  the  one  we  are 
accustomed  to  speak  of  as  the  Covenant  of  Sinai. 

What  does  the  Apostle  mean  by  saying  of  this,  that  it 
is  "  a  better  covenant  which  is  established  on  better  prom- 
ises "  than  the  old  ?     We  answer, — 

1.  Not  that  the  Covenant  of  Sinai  was,  in  substance,  the 
"Covenant  of  Works,"  "this  do,  and  thou  shalt  live,"  re- 
enacted,  as  some  would  have  us  believe.  The  Covenant  of 
Sinai  was,  in  substance,  as  truly  the  "  Covenant  of  Grace" 
as  the  new  covenant  is.  A  large  part  of  this  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  taken  up  in  showing  how,  in  the  Mosaic  law 
we  have  "a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come," — how,  in  all 
the  peculiar  ceremonial  worship  established  by  that  law 
the  gospel  was  preached  in  type  and  symbol.  And  we 
know  from  the  recorded  experience  of  God's  saints  who 
lived  under  the  old  covenant,  that  the  practical  working 
of  religion  in  the  human  soul  was  substantially  the  same 
then  that  it  is  now.  The  Psalms  give  the  best  possible  ex- 
pression to  the  Christian  feelings  and  experience  of  men,  in 
every  age;  and  as  they  have  been  used  in  the  church's 
service  of  song  from  the  days  in  which  they  were  written, 
— and  in  the  case  of  some  of  them,  e.  g.,  Ps.  xc,  this  takes 
us  back  to  the  days  of  Moses, — to  the  present  day,  so  we 
believe  they  will  continue  to  be  used  as  long  as  there  is  a 
church  on  earth. 

2.  Neither  can  we  admit  that  the  Covenant  of  Sinai  had 
exclusive  reference  to  a  temporal  and  earthly  inheritance. 
In  so  far  as  the  land  of  Canaan  was  concerned,  the  Cove- 
nant of  Sinai  was  but  a  renewal  of  the  covenant  with  Abram  ; 
and  in  that  covenant,  the  earthly  Canaan  with  all  the 
promises  regarding  it,  were  understood  by  the  men  of  faith 
as  typical  of  a  better  inheritance.  This  is  most  clearly 
taught  us  in  a  subsequent  portion  of  this  Epistle : — "  These 
all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the  promises,  but 
having  seen  them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them, 
and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers 
and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  For  they  that  say  such  things 
declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a  country.  And  truly,  if 
they  had  been  mindful  of  that  country  from  whence  they 


The  New  "a  Belter  Covenant "  than  the  Old.        47 

came  out,  they  might  have  had  opportunity  to  have  re- 
turned. But  now,  they  desire  a  better  country,  that  is, 
a  heavenly;  wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called 
their  God:  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city."  (Heb. 
xi.  13-16.) 

The  New  is  a  better  Covenant  than  the  Old  in  these  par- 
ticulars— 

1.  There  is  no  earthly,  secular  element  embraced  in  it. 
By  the  Covenant  of  Sinai  the  theocracy  was  established, 
and  Jehovah  assumed  toward  Israel  the  relation  of  their 
Supreme  Civil  Euler  as  well  as  their  God.  In  his  charac- 
ter of  Supreme  Civil  Buler,  he  enacted  a  code  of  laws  for 
their  government  as  a  nation;  and  in  this  Covenant,  he 
bound  himself  to  do  what  every  righteous  king  desires  to 
do,  to  secure  the  peaceful  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
and  worldly  prosperity,  on  condition  of  such  obedience  as 
the  good  citizen  is  accustomed  to  render  to  the  laws  of  the 
land  in  which  he  lives.  With  Jehovah  as  the  Supreme 
Civil  Ruler,  the  laws  of  the  land,  of  necessity  took  a  peculiar 
cast;  e.  g.,  idolatry  became  high- treason,  and  was  capitally 
punished  as  such.  What  was  established  was, — not  a 
union  of  Church  and  State,  but  rather  a  Church — State, 
in  which  attention  to  the  established  worship  and  religious 
ceremonial  became  a  civil  as  well  as  a  religious  duty. 
This — on  the  one 'hand.  On  the  other: —  In  all  the  cere- 
monial established  the  gospel  was  preached.  Jehovah, 
when  legislating  for  Israel,  did  not  sink  his  character  as 
God  in  that  of  the  Supreme  Civil  Ruler.  Now,  the  Gospel 
has  ever  been  one  and  the  same, — "  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth 
ill  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  (Jno. 
iii.  16.)  The  one  condition  of  salvation  under  the  gospel 
is,  faith. 

In  the  Covenant  of  Sinai  God  bound  himself  to  Israel — 
(1)  On  condition  of  obedience  to  the  laws  civil  and  cere- 
monial, such  as  good  citizens  are  accustomed  to  render  to 
the  laws  of  the  land,  to  secure  to  them  the  earthly  Canaan 
and  an  abundant  measure  of  worldly  prosperity.  And  (2) 
on  condition  of  obedience  to  the  gospel,  true  faith  in  the 
Saviour  typified  in  all  their  bloody  sacrifices,  he  bound 


48  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

himself  to  secure  to  them  that  Heaven  of  which  Canaan 
was  the  type,  and  spiritual  life  and  strength  while  they 
were  journeying  thither. 

The  terms  of  the  covenant  Israel  misunderstood  and 
perverted ;  substituting  the  conditions  of  worldly  prosperi- 
ty in  the  place  of  the  conditions  of  spiritual  blessedness : 
— and,  then  going  a  step  farther,  degrading  that  spiritual 
blessedness  into  a  mere  form  of  worldly  prosperity;  so 
that  to  their  hopes,  the  kingdom  of  God  which  Messiah 
was  to  establish,  became  little  more  than  a  splendid  world- 
ly kingdom,  with  Jerusalem  as  its  capital  city  : — and  so 
the  spiritual  religion  of  faithful  Abraham  was  transformed 
into  the  miserable  hypocrisy  (stage-acting)  of  the  Pharisees 
of  our  Lord 's  day,  and  the  temple  of  God  became  but  "  a 
whited  sepulchre." 

In  the  New  Covenant  no  such  secular,  earthly  element 
is  embraced.  There  is  no  temptation  presented  to  forget 
the  heavenly  Canaan  in  seeking  to  secure  an  earthly  one ; 
— and  if  formalism  and  hypocrisy  (stage-acting)  takes  the 
place  of  the  worship  of  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  it  must 
be  in  direct  opposition  to  the  express  terms  of  the  cove- 
nant. To  this  peculiarity  of  the  New  Covenant  our  Lord 
refers  in  his  conversation  with  the  woman  of  Samaria, — 
"Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  cometh  when  ye  shall 
neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem,  worship 
the  Father,  .  .  .  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the 
true  worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in 
truth  :  for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him."  (Jno. 
iv.  21-23.) 

2.  Under  the  New  Covenant  we  have  a  much  clearer 
and  fuller  revelation  of  the  Gospel  than  under  the  Old. 

The  antetype  is  always  clearer  than  the  type,  and  a  far 
better  knowledge  can  be  secured  by  the  examination  of 
a  substance  than  the  study  of  its  shadow : — and  now,  that 
the  long  promised  Messiah  has  come,  has  lived  and 
preached  on  earth,  has  dwelt  among  us  as  "  God  manifest 
in  the  flesh,"  and  has  consummated  that  atonement  for 
sin  which  was  promised  from  the  beginning,  we  can  better 
understand  the  nature  and  provisions  of  the  Gospel,  than 
it  was  possible  man  should  do  under  the  Old  Covenant. 


The  Xew  "  a  Better  Covenant "  than  the  Old.       49 

On  this  point,  Peter  writes, — "  Of  which  salvation  the  pro- 
phets have  inquired  and  searched  dihgently,  who  pro})he- 
sied  of  the  grace  that  should  come  unto  you :  searching 
what,  or  what  manner  of  time  the  S})irit  of  Christ  which 
was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  testified  before-hand  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow. 
Unto  whom  it  was  revealed,  that  not  unto  themselves,  but 
unto  us  they  did  minister  the  things  which  are  now  re- 
})orted  unto  you  by  them  that  have  preached  the  gospel 
unto  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven." 
(L  Pet.  i.  10-12).  And  our  Lord  says, — ''Verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  That  many  prophets  and  righteous  men  have 
desired  to  see  those  things  which  ye  see,  and  have  not 
seen  them ;  and  to  hear  those  things  which  ye  hear,  and 
have  not  heard  them."  (Matt.  xiii.  17.) 

3.  Under  the  New  Covenant  the  church  is  no  longer 
confined  to  a  single  nation,  as  under  the  Old, — but  her 
commission  is — "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  (disciple)  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you ;  and  lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  20.)  The  Church's  success  in  the  discharge  of 
this  commission  is  guaranteed  in  the  very  terms  of  the 
New  Covenant, — "  And  they  shall  not  teach  every  man 
his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying.  Know 
the  Lord:  for  all  shall  know  me  from  the  least  to  the 
greatest."  (Heb.  viii.  11.)  The  service  to  which  the 
church  is  here  called  is  a  blessed  service ;  blessed  in  its 
immediate  influence  on  the  happiness  of  the  faithful  ser- 
vant, and  yet  more  blessed  in  its  ultimate  rewards.  Our 
Lord  says — "  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the  fields ; 
for  they  are  white  already  to  harvest.  And  he  that 
reapeth  receiveth  wages,  and  gathereth  fruit  unto  life 
eternal ;  that  both  he  that  soweth  and  he  that  reapeth, 

may   rejoice  together I  sent  you   to   reap   that 

whereon  ye  bestowed  no  labor :  other  men  labored,  and 
ye  are  entered  into  their  labors."  (Jno.  iv.  35,  36,  38.) 

4.  As  intimately  connected  with  the  last  mentioned  par- 
ticular,   the    New   Covenant   secures  to  the    Church  that 

3 


'50  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

abundant  outpouring  and  abiding  presence  of  the  Spirit, 
which  leads  Paul  to  speak  of  these  "  last  times  "  as  the 
times  of  "  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit."  '(2  Cor.  iii.  8.) 
To  his  disciples,  just  before  his  departure,  and  to  comfort 
them  in  prospect  of  that  event,  our  Lord  said — "  I  tell 
you  the  truth;  it  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away:  for 
if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you ; 
but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you.  And  when  he 
is  come,  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteous- 
ness, and  of  judgment,  .  .  .  will  guide  you  into  all  truth  ; 
for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall 
hear,  that  shall  he  speak ;  and  he  will  shew  you  things  to 
come.  He  shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and 
shall  shew  it  unto  you."  (Jno.  xvi.  7-15.)  "  He  shall 
give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 
forever."  (Jno.  xiv.  16.)  Not  that  the  Spirit  in  his  con- 
victing, regenerating,  and  sanctifying  power  was  unknown 
to  the  Church  under  the  Old  Covenant : — but  under  the 
New  Covenant  he  is  given  more  freely  and  in  more  abun- 
dant measure  than  ever  before, — as  illustrated  in  the 
wondrous  power  with  which  the  Gospel  was  preached  on 
the  first  Christian  Pentecost.  (See  Acts  ii.  14-21.)  And 
who  shall  say  in  what  wondrous  manner  the  scene  of  that 
day  shall  yet  be  repeated  in  the  history  of  the  Church. 

All  these  are  grounds  of  special  thanksgiving  to  God : 
And  if  the  pious  Jew  could  praise  God  in  the  words  of  the 
hallel — "  I  will  praise  thee  :  for  thou  hast  heard  me,  and 
art  become  my  salvation.  The  stone  which  the  builders 
refused  is  become  the  headstone  of  the  corner.  This  is 
the  Lord's  doing  ;  it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes."  (Ps.  cxviii. 
21-23),  with  how  much  deeper  feeling  should  we  praise 
him,  when  what  was  to  him  prophecy,  has  to  us  become 
history.  If  the  old  Passover  was  a  Eucharist,  surely  the 
new  should  be  doubly  so. 


TliC  Lord's  Supper  a  Communion. 


CHAPTEE  VI. 


THE   LORD  S   SUrPER   A   COMMUNION. 

§24.  1  Cor.  X.  16-21.  §25.  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Communion.  g26.  John 
xiii.34,  35.  The  New  Commandment.  g27.  John  xvii.  20,  21.  Christian  Unity, 
"28.  The  Lord's  Supper  adapted  to  exhibit  this  Unity. 

§24.  1  Cor.  X.  16-21. 

1  Cor.  X.  16-21.  "  The  cup  of  blessing  whicli  we  bless,  is 
it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The 
bread  {to7i  arton,  the  loaf)  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?  For  we, 
being  many  are  one  bread  (loaf).  Behold  Israel  after 
the  flesh;  arc  not  they  which  eat  of  the  sacrifices 
partakers  {koinonia,  communicants)  of  the  altar? 
What  say  I  then  ?  that  the  idol  is  anything,  or  that 
which  is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  is  anything? 
But  I  say,  that  the  things  which  the  Gentiles 
sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God ; 
and  I  would  not  that  ye  should  have  fellowship 
{hoinonoiis,  should  have  communion)  with  devils. 
Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup 
of  devils ;  ye  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table, 
and  of  the  table  of  devils." 

In  this  passage  it  is  plain — 

1.  That  in  ver.  16,  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. "  The  cup  of  hlessing,"  in  ver.  21  called  "the  cup 
of  the  Lord,"  is  the  cup  used  in  that  ordinance.  In  the 
Paschal  Supper  one  of  the  four  cups  of  wine  used — the 
third,  or  as  some  say,  the  last,  was  called  "the  cup  of 
blessing,"  because  a  benediction  was  proupunced  over  it. 


62  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

Our  Lord  when  he  took  the  cup  used  in  the  Supper, 
"  gave  thanks  "  (see  §  20)  before  giving  it  to  the  disciples, 
and  it  is  evident  from  Paul's  words  "  which  we  bless," 
that  the  primitive  Church  followed  his  example  in  this 
particular ;  and  so,  the  name  originally  given  to  the  Pas- 
chal cup  was  naturally  transferred  to  that  used  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  As  Dr.  Hodge  remarks — "  The  idea  of 
consecration  is  necessarily  included.  Wine,  as  wine,  is 
not  the  sacramental  symbol  of  Christ's  blood,  but  only 
when  solemnly  consecrated  for  that  purpose.  Even  our 
ordinary  food  is  said  to  '  be  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God 
and  prayer  '  (1  Tim.  iv.  5)  because  it  is  set  apart  by  a  reli- 
gious service  to  the  end  for  which  it  was  appointed.  So  the 
cup  of  blessing  is  the  cup  which,  by  the  benediction  pro- 
nounced over  it,  is  set  apart  from  a  common  to  a  sacred 
use."  {Hodge  on  1  Cor.  x.  16.)  "  TJte  bread  {loaf)  which 
we  break  "  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  large  thin  loaves  or 
cakes  of  unleavened  bread,  which  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, following  the  example  of  our  Lord  who  used  one 
of  the  loaves  of  this  kind  left  from  the  Paschal  supper, 
were  accustomed  to  break,  distributing  to  each  communi- 
cant a  part  of  the  one  loaf. 

2.  That  Paul  takes  it  for  granted,  that  all  regarded  the 
Lord's  Supper  as  of  the  nature  of  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice. 
Under  the  law  of  Moses,  whilst  in  the  case  of  some  sacri- 
fices, the  whole  victim  was  burned  upon  God's  altar ;  in 
the  case  of  others  (see  Lev.  vii.  15-19)  after  the  blood 
had  been  poured  out  at  the  foot  of  the  altar,  and  certain 
parts  burned,  what  remained  was  to  be  eaten ;  a  part  of  it 
by  the  priests,  and  another  part  by  the  offerer  and  his 
friends.  The  feast  thus  provided  for  the  offerer  and  his 
friends  is  usually  styled  "  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice."  This 
feast  was  not  eaten  at  the  altar,  nor  even  in  the  precincts 
of  the  temple,  but  in  some  convenient  place  in  Jerusalem 
or  its  suburbs.  The  whole  victim  was,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, consecrated,  given  up  to  God,  and  so  became  his 
property ; — and  when  afterwards,  a  part  of  it  was  given 
back  to  the  offerer,  he,  in  feasting  upon  it,  was  regarded 
as  "  eating  at  the  Lord's  table." 

As  already  stated  (§  14)  the  three  elements,  viz.,  the  pro- 


The  Lord's  Siqrper  a  Communion.  53 

pitiatory,  the  eucharistic  and  tlio  covenanting,  enter  more 
or  less  distinctly  into  the  idea  of  all  sacrifices.  In  sucli 
sacrifices  as  these,  the  propitiatory  element  is  prominent 
in  the  olFering  of  the  blood,  and  the  parts  burned  upon 
the  altar;  whilst  the  eucharistic  and  covenanting  ele- 
ments, especially  the  latter,  come  out  more  distinctly  in 
"  the  feast  upon  the  sacrifice."  This  evidently  is  Paul's 
view  of  the  case  when  he  writes — "  Behold  Israel  after 
the  flesh;  are  not  they  which  eat  of  the  sacrifices  par- 
takers (communicants)  of  the  altar?"  By  eating  at 
Jehovah's  table,  and  especially,  eating  of  his  salt,  (and  the 
law  was,  "with  all  thine  oflerings  thou  shalt  ofier  salt," 
(Lev.  iii.  13) — the  Jew  professed  allegiance  to  him ;  and 
as  many  made  the  same  profession,  their  common  alle- 
giance to  the  same  sovereign,  necessarily  implied  fello\y- 
citizenship  with  each  other;  their  common  communion 
with  the  same  God,  communion  with  each  other. 

Eating  the  Paschal  supper,  which  was  a  feast  upon  the 
Paschal  sacrifice,  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  an  act  of 
communion,  not  only  with  Jehovah,  but  of  those  who  sat 
at  the  same  table,  with  each  other.  As  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  essentially  of  the  same  character  with  the  Pass- 
over,—  not  a  sacrifice,  the  one  Christian  sacrifice  was 
oflfered  upon  Calvary  and  not  in  "the  upper  chamber  at 
Jerusalem,"  but  "  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice," — the  covenant- 
ing element  in  the  one  was,  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples, 
naturally  transferred  to  the  other.  As  he  who  partook  of 
the  Passover  was  looked  upon  as  thereby  declaring  him- 
self a  worshipper  of  Jehovah,  and  a  Jew ;  -so  he  who  par- 
took of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  naturally  looked  upon  as 
thereby  declaring  himself  a  worshipper  of  the  Lord,  and  a 
Christian.     From  these  facts  Paul  reasons — 

3.  That  he  who  ate  the  meat  ofierod  to  idols,  knowing 
it  to  be  such,  and  at  a  heathen  feast,  would  inevitably  be 
regarded,  by  both  Jews  and  Christians,  as  a  worshipper  of 
the  idol,  and  as  having  communion  with  the  heathen  who 
feasted  with  him.  The  fact,  that  in  his  secret  soul  he  be- 
lieved and  knew  "  that  an  idol  was  nothing,"  did  not  alter 
the  case;  as  the  matter  in  question  respected,  not  his  own 
private  views  of  matters,  but  the  construction  which  Jews 


54  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

and  Christians  would  certainly  put  upon  his  conduct. 
Hence  he  concludes,  that  participation  in  a  heathen 
*'  feast  upon  a  sacrifice  "  was  properly  an  act  of  idolatry, — 
and  reminding  the  Corinthian  Christians  that  it  had  been 
decided  by  God,  as  far  back  as  in  Moses'  day  (see  Deut. 
xxxii.  17,  Lev.  xvii.  7)  that  "  what  the  Gentiles  sacri- 
ficed, they  sacrificed  to  devils  and  not  to  God,"  he  warns 
them  in  the  words — "  Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  cup  of  devils ;  ye  cannot  partake  of  the 
Lord's  table  and  of  the  table  of  devils." 

4.  Paul  goes  a  step  further,  and,  guided  by  inspiration, 
teaches,  not  only  that  the  idea  of  communion  at  once  with 
God  and  with  each  other  was  naturally  suggested  by  the 
nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  but  that  our  Lord  in  order- 
ing the  ceremonial  of  the  Supper  distinctly  embraced  this 
truth  in  its  symbolic  teaching.  "  For  we  being  many  are 
one  bread  (loaf)  and  one  body;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of 
that  one  bread  (loaf),"  ver.  17.  On  the  expression  eis 
artos,  here  rendered  "one  bread,"  McKnight  has  this 
note :  "  The  Greek  word  artos,  especially  when  joined 
with  words  of  number,  always  signifies  a  loaf,  and  is  so 
translated  in  our  Bibles,  (Matt.  xvi.  9).  Do  ye  not  yet 
understand,  neither  remember  the  five,  artos  loaves  of  the 
five  thousand?"  (McKnight  on  1  Cor.  x.  17.)  Paul  here 
teaches  that  as  the  diiferent  parts  of  the  one  loaf,  though 
broken,  and  separated  one  from  another,  yet  in  reality  all 
constitute  but  one  loaf;  so  the  different  Christians,  in  par- 
taking of  these  several  parts  of  the  same  loaf,  declare  that 
they  all  belong  to,  and  constitute  one  body ;  in  this  em- 
phatic manner  setting  forth  their  communion  one  with 
another ;  saying  to  all,  not  only  do  aU  belong  to  one, 
Christ,  but  we  are  aU  brethren. 


§  25    Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Communion,  [Koinonia). 

The  Greek  word  koinonia  translated  communion  in  1 
Cor.  X.  16,  means  literally  a  having  in  common,  a  partici- 
pation in,  and  in  its  simple  and  derivative  forms,  it  is 
more  frequently  rendered  in  our  English  Version,  fellow- 
ship and  participation,  than  communion.     Thus  in  1  Cor. 


Scriptural  use  of  the  Word  Communion.  55 

x.  18,  "Behold  Israel  after  the  llesh;  are  not  they  which 
eat  of  the  sacrilices  partakers  {koinonoi,  coininmiicants)  of 
the  altar ; "  and  in  vcr.  20,  "  I  would  not  that  you  should 
have  fdloivship  [kuinonous,  have  communion)  with  devils." 

As  illustrating  the  Scriptural  use  of  the  word,  let  the 
reader  consider  the  following  passages  : — 

Heb.  ii.  14.  "  Forasmuch  as  the  children  are  partakers 
of  flesh  and  blood,  he  (Christ)  also  himself  took  part  of  the 
same."  Here  the  participation,  communion,  spoken  of  is 
that  which  men  have  in  our  common  humanity. 

Phil.  iii.  10.  "  That  I  may  know  him,  and  the  power  of 
his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  being 
made  conformable  unto  his  death."  Here  the  fellowship, 
communion,  spoken  of,  is  that  participation  in  Christ's  suf- 
ferings which  Paul  was  called  to  endure ; — not  in  Christ's 
sufferings  regarded  as  an  atonement  for  sin ;  in  that  view 
of  them  no  man  can  be  a  partaker  with  Christ  in  his  suf- 
ferings ;  but  in  his  sufferings  endured  in  preaching  the 
gospel,  when  for  the  gospel's  sake  Jew  and  Gentile  arrayed 
themselves  in  deadly  hostility  to  him,  and  which  were  a 
benefit  to  the  Church  in  the  way  indicated  by  the  common 
saying — "  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the 
Church."  In  this  way  Paul  could,  and  did  have  "  felloAV- 
ship,"  communion  in  Christ's  sufferings,  even  to  the  extent 
of  dying  by  crucifixion,  as  his  Lord  had  died. 

2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  be  with  you  all.  Amen."  Here,  the  communion 
spoken  of  is  a  participation  in  the  benefits  of  the  blessed 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  now  carrying  forward  on  earth, 
as  Christ  in  heaven,  the  work  of  human  redemption. 

1  John  i.  3,  "That  which  we  have  seen  and  heard 
declare  we  unto  you,  that  ye  also  may  hnYe  fellowship  with 
us;  and  truly  onr fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  Here,  the  fellowship,  communion, 
spoken  of,  is  a  communion  in  "  that  eternal  life,  which  was 
with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us."  Ver.  2. 
The  rfature  of  this  communion  is  beautifully  set  forth  in 
our  Lord's  words — "  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches ; 
He  that  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  liim,  the  same  bringcth 


56  ■    The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

forth  much  fruit ;  for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing." 
(Jno.  XV.  5.)  These  are  instances  in  which  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  the  Christians'  communion  with  Christ,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  God  the  Father.  As  instances  of  its  use  re- 
specting Christian  communion  one  with  another,  let  the 
reader  consider — 

1  John  i.  7.  "  If  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the 
light,  we  have  felloioship,  one  with  another."  Here,  the 
fellowship,  communion,  spoken  of,  is  in  all  that  distinc- 
tively makes  up  the  Christian  life  in  the  world.  In  conse- 
quence of  our  all  walking  with  Christ  in  the  light,  we  are 
all  walking  together  in  that  light  of  which  Christ  is  the 
source. 

2  Cor.  viii.  4.  "  Praying  us  with  much  entreaty,  that 
we  would  receive  the  gift,  and  take  upon  us  the  fellowship 
of  the  ministering  to  the  saints."  Here  "  the  gift  "  spoken 
of,  as  we  learn  from  the  context,  is  the  contribution  made 
by  the  churches  of  Macedonia  for  the  relief  of  the  neces- 
sities of  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  fellowship^ 
communion,  spoken  of,  is  in  that  ministry  to  the  necessi- 
ties of  those  poor  saints. 

Heb.  xiii.  16.  "  But  to  do  good  and  to  communicate 
forget  not ;  for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased." 
This  verse  Doddridge  paraphrases — "Be  not,  therefore, 
forgetful  of  doing  all  the  good  you  possibly  can,  in  your 
respective  stations,  and  of  communicating  liberally  and 
cheerfully  of  your  substance,  to  those  who  are  in  necessity ; 
for  God  is  well  pleased  with  such  sacrifices ;  which  were 
always  more  pleasing  to  him  than  any  victim,  which,  in 
thg  neglect  of  these,  could  be  brought  to  his  altar."  ' 
i Doddridge  s  Fain.  Ex.) 

Acts  ii.  42.  "  And  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the 
Apostles'  doctrine  and  felloioship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread 
and  in  prayer."  Here  the  Pentecostal  converts  are  spoken 
of  as  'ho.Viwg  fellowship,  communion,  with  the  Apostles  and 
with  one  another  in  ''breaking  of  bread,"  by  which  we 
understand  both  social  a.nd  sacramental  eating  together, 
"and  in  prayer."  By  all  these  acts,  they  signified  to  the 
world  around  them  that  they  were  one  with  the  Apostles, 
and  one  with  each  other. 


The  New  Commandment.  57 

Gal.  ii.  9.  "  And  when  James,  Cephas,  and  John,  who 
seemed  to  be  pillars,  perceived  the  grace  that  was  given 
unto  me,  they  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas,  the  right  hand 
oi  fellowship ;  that  we  should  go  unto  the  heathen,  and 
they  unto  the  circumcision."  Here  the  felloivship,  com- 
munion, spoken  of,  is  a  communion  in  preaching  the 
gospel : — and  what  Paul  means  is,  that  James,  Cephas 
and  John  in  giving  to  him  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand, 
publicly  declared  that  they  were  all  the  servants  of  one 
master,  preaching  one  gospel,  engaged  in  one  and  the  same 
blessed  work. 

In  these  passages  Christians  are  represented  as  having 
communion,  one  with  another,  in  their  Christian  walk  and 
conversation,  in  good  deeds  and  especially  deeds  of  charity, 
iu  prayer,  public  and  social,  and  in  preaching  the  gospel. 

§26.  Joh/i  xiii.  34,  35.     The  New  Commandment. 

"  A  new  commandment  I  give  unto  you,  That  ye  love 
one  another ;  as  I  have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love  one 
another.  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  dis- 
ciples, if  ye  have  love  one  to  another."    Jno.  xiii.  34,  35. 

In  John  xiii.-xvi.  we  have  Christ's  discourse  addressed 
to  his  disciples,  as  they  sat  at  the  table,  in  the  upper 
chamber  in  Jerusalem,  when  he  instituted  the  sacrament 
of  the  Supper.  This  fact  is  often  overlooked  in  reading 
these  chapters,  and  so,  something  at  least,  of  the  peculiar 
cast  of  the  meaning  which  belongs  to  his  words  is  lost  to 
us.  A  careful  examination  of  this  whole  discourse  will 
show  that  it  has,  in  every  part  of  it,  a  special  appropri- 
ateness, as  well  as  an  immediate  reference  to  the  circum- 
stances in  which  it  was  spoken,  and  the  great  event  then 
just  at  hand. 

Judas  has  just  withdrawn,  as  we  learn  from  v.  30,  that 
he  may  betray  his  Master.  "When  he  was  gone  out," 
Jesus  knowing,  as  the  disciples  did  not,  the  purpose  for 
which  he  had  gone,  addresses  them  in  the  Words — "  Little 
children,  yet  a  little  while  I  am  with  you.  ...  A  new 
commandment  I  give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another ; 
as  I  have  loved  you  that  ye  also  love  one  another.  By 
3* 


58  The  Doctrine  of  the  LorcVs  Supper, 

this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye 
have  love  one  to  another."  Brotherly  love  is  inculcated 
in  other  parts  of  Scripture ;  and  John  proposes  it  as  a 
trustworthy  test  whereby  we  may  "  know  that  we  have 
passed  from  death  unto  life."  (1  Jno.  iii.  14.)  But  on  no 
occasion  is  it  inculcated  with  as  great  solemnity  and  ten- 
derness, as  when  the  lesson  came  from  the  life  of  our  Lord 
himself,  as  he  sat  then  in  the  midst  of  his  disciples,  with 
the  memorials  of  his  wondrous  love  for  them,  on  the  taLle 
before  them. 

With  natures  but  partially  sanctified,  and  such  are  the 
natures  of  the  children  of  God  in  this  world,  there  will  be 
estrangements  occurring,  differences  springing  up  from  time 
to  time ;  and  these  estrangements,  differences,  cannot  but 
prove  detrimental  to  the  spiritual  well-being  of  those  im- 
mediately affected,  as  well  as  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way 
of  the  men  of  the  world.  To -guard  against  the  danger 
hence  arising,  Christ  has  specially  provided  that  on  two 
occasions,  and  these  of  frequent  recurrence,  this  whole 
matter  shall  be  carefully  examined  into,  and  every  wrong 
corrected.  (1.)  When  we  come  to  a  throne  of  grace. 
"And  when  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have  aught 
against  any ;  that  your  Father  also  which  is  in  heaven 
may  forgive  you  your  trespasses.  But  if  ye  do  not  forgive, 
neither  will  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  forgive  your 
trespasses."  (Mark  xi.  25,  26.)  (2.)  When  we  approach 
the  Lord's  table.  "  Therefore,  if  thou  bring  thy  gift  to 
the  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that  thy  brother  hath 
aught  against  thee;  leave  there  thy  gift  before  the  altar, 
and  go  thy  way :  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,  and 
then  come  and  offer  thy  gift.']  (Matt.  v.  23,  24.)  That 
we  may  interpret  these  words  aright,  we  must  remember 
that  sacrifice  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  was, 
in  its  preceptive  import,  substantially  the  same  with  the 
Lord's  Supper  under  the  New : — and  that  when  our- 
Lord  spake  these  words  the  Old  Testament  dispensation 
was  yet  in  force ;  the  Lord's  Supper  had  not  yet  been  in- 
stituted. So  was  the  lesson  understood  in  primitive  times. 
— "  Hence  the  beautiful  practice  of  the  early  Church,  to 
see  that  all  differences  amongst  brethren  and  sisters  in 


Christian  Unity.  59 

Chr'st  were  made  up,  in  the  spirit  of  love,  before  going  to 
the  Holy  Communion;  and  the  Church  of  England  has  a 
rubrical  direction  to  this  effect  in  her  Communion  service. 
Certainly,  if  this  be  the  highest  act  of  worship  on  earth, 
such  reconciliation — though  obligatory  on  all  other  occa- 
sions of  worship,  must  be  peculiarly  so  then."  {Brown's 
Commentary,  Matt.  v.  24.) 

§  27.  John  xvii.  20,  21.    Christian  Unity, 

"  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone ;  but  for  them  also 
which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word  ;  that  they 
all  may  be  one  as  thou.  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee, 
that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us :  that  the  world  may  be- 
lieve that  thou  hast  sent  me."  (Jno.  xvii.  20,  21.) 

These  words,  like  those  examined  in  the  last  section, 
were  uttered  by  our  Lord  at  the  institution  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Supper,  and  are  a  part  of  his  prayer  offered 
on  that  occasion,  probably,  shortly  before  *'  they  sang  a 
hymn,  and  wont  out"  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane.  The 
petition  is  just  the  lesson,  examined  in  the  last  section, 
thrown  into  the  form  of  a  prayer.  The  unity  of  the 
Church,  that  his  disciples  should  be  one  in  life  and  in 
heart  is  the  burden  of  both  alike.  And  this  unity,  our 
Lord  would  have  a  unity — not  alone  in  heart,  but  also  in 
life — a  unity  that  shall  be  seen  and  recognized  by  the 
world : — "  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my 
disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  for  another." — "  That  the 
ivorld  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved 
them  as  thou  hast  loved  me." 

That  the  Scriptures  recognize  a  Catholic  Church  visible 
in  the  world  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation  is  be- 
yond all  reasonable  question.  Our  Lord  does  not  often 
use  the  word  Church  : — but  instead  thereof  the  expressions, 
kingdom  of  God,  kingdom  of  heaven.  In  his  parables  of 
the  "tares  in  the  field,"  (Matt.  xiii.  24,)  and  the  "drag 
net,"  (Matt.  xiii.  47,)  all  commentators  agree  that  it  is  of 
his  Catholic  Church  visible  he  speaks.  No  other  sense  of 
the  expression  "  Kingdom  of  heaven,"  can  be  made  to 
hai'monize  with  his  own  interpretation  of  these  parables. 


60  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

So  when  Paul  writes — "  Beyond  measure  I  persecuted  the 
Church  of  God,"  (Cral  i.  13,)  and — "God  hath  set  some  in 
the  Church,  first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers,  after  that  miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings, 
helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues,"  (1  Cor.  xii.  28,) 
and — "  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  Church  of  the  Hving 
God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,"  (1  Tim.  iii.  15), 
it  will  not  admit  of  question  that  the  Church  he  speaks  of 
is  the  Catholic  Church  visible. 

Organic  unity  in  the  Catholic  Church  visible,  maintained 
throughout  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  and  for  some 
time  under  the  New,  has  long  since  disappeared.  The 
claim  of  Rome  to  be  the  Catholic  Church,  necessarily  in- 
volves the  denial  of  the  church  character  of  the  Greek 
Church,  a  body  nearly  as  large,  and  certainly  older,  and 
nearer  in  organization  to  the  Apostolic  church  than  she  is, 
— and  of  the  Protestant  church,  a  very  large  body,  and  a 
body  holding  the  very  faith  preached  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  from  which  Rome  has  sadly  departed.  The  claim 
sometimes  made  by  individual  members  of  the  smaller 
Protestant  bodies  that  the  body  to  which  they  belong  is 
"the  Church,"  i.  e.,  the  Catholic  Church  visible,  is  simply 
ridiculous,  and  only  shows  to  what  lengths  bigotry  when 
united  with  pitiable  ignorance  can  carry  a  man. 

In  what  then  does  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  vis- 
ible, in  our  day,  consist?  We  answer —  In  what  Paul 
calls  "the  common  faith."  (Titus  i.  4.)  According  to  the 
Westminster  Assembly —  "  The  Visible  Church,  which  is 
also  Catholic,  or  universal  under  the  gospel,  (not  confined 
to  one  nation  as  under  the  law)  consists  of  all  those 
throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children."  (Confession  of  Faith,  ch.xxv..  Art.  ii.) 
By  "  the  common  faith,"  "  the  true  religion,"  we  under- 
stand,— not  the  whole  system  of  doctrine  taught  us  in  the 
Scriptures ;  but  those  great,  fundamental  truths  which  all 
evangelical  Christians  agree  must  be  believed  in  order  to 
the  salvation  of  the  soul.  In  their  reception  of  these  truths 
as  articles  of  faith,  the  real  unity  of  these  several  bodies 
consists ;  and  in  their  publication  of  them  in  their  creeds, 
this  unity  is  made  known  to  the  world.     Such  a  unity  as 


The  Lord's  Supper  adapted  to  Exhibit  this  Unity.  61 

this  is  for  more  real,  and  reaches  for  deeper  than  any  unity 
in  mere  organization,  and  is  the  kind  of  unity  which  proj)- 
erly  belongs  to  a  "  kingdom,  not  of  this  world  "  (Jno.  xviii. 
36)  "a  kingdom  that  is  within  man."  (Luke  xvii.  2L) 

That  the  Catholic  Church  visible,  though  divided  into 
different  denominations,  yet  possesses  such  a  unity  as  this 
will  not  be  denied  by  any  impartial  observer  : — and  by  all 
the  ditierent  denominations  it  is  recognized  in  having  com- 
Tnunion,  as  the  Scriptures  enjoin,  in  good  works,  especially 
works  of  Christian  benevolence,  in  reading  the  Scriptures, 
in  public  and  social  prayer,  and  in  preaching  the  gospel. — 
And  most  of  them  go  a  step  further,  and  recognize  it  in 
having  communion  in  the  sacraments,  especially  the  Lord's 
Supper.  When  we  remember,  that  it  was  at  the  institu- 
tion of  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper,  whilst  our  Lord  him- 
self was  presiding  at  the  table,  that  he  uttered  the  "new 
commandment,"  and  prayed  that  "  all  that  should  believe 
on  him  .  .  .  might  be  one,"  can  we  doubt  that  there  is  a 
peculiar  propriety  in  holding  communion  in  this  way? 
■  And  when  we  remember,  further,  that  he  has  made  the 
rite  itself  a  rite  of  communion,  by  requiring  all  to  partake 
of  the  one  loaf  and  the  one  cup,  do  we  seem  to  be  pressing 
matters  too  far  when  we  say,  that  to  hold  communion  in 
other  ways,  and  refuse  it  in  this,  is  to  dishonor  our  Lord's 
own  appointment  in  the  matter  ? 

§  28.   Tlie  Lord's  Supper  adapted  to  exhibit  this  Unity. 

If  we  examine  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Word  of  God,  we  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the 
admirable  adaptation  of  the  ordinance  to  serve  as  a 
symbol  of  the  real  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  visible, 
notwithstanding  its  division  into  several  denominations. 
(1)  As  a  Commemorative  rite,  it  is  "Jesus  Christ  evidently 
set  forth  crucified  among  us."  (2)  As  a  symbolic  rite,  it 
sets  forth  the  truth  that  Christ  is  the  source  of  our  Christian 
life,  and  he  is  this  in  virtue  of  his  sacrificial  death.  (3)  As 
a  Covenanting  rite,  it  "is  the  New  Testament  (Covenant) 
in  Christ's  blood,"  and  the  substance  of  that  new  covenant 
is  expressed  in  the  words — "  their  sins  and  their  iniquities 


62  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

will  I  remember  no  more," — "  I  will  put  my  laws  in  their 
minds  and  write  them  in  their  hearts" — and  "all  shall 
know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest."  (4)  As  a  Eu- 
charistie  rite,  it  is  a  rendering  of  thanksgiving  to  God  for 
the  blessings  recorded  in  this  New  Covenant.  Now  this  is 
just  what  Paul  speaks  of  as  "  the  common  faith,"  and  the 
Westminster  Assembly  as  "  the  true  religion:" — and  it  is 
in  this  that  the  true  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  Visible 
consists;  it  is  in  this  we  recognize  the  answer  to  our 
Lord's  prayer  for  those  "  that  should  believe  on  him,  .  .  . 
that  all  might  be  one." 


Close  Communion.  63 


CHAPTEE,    VII. 


CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

J 20.  Close  Communion  defined.  §30.  Does  Sacramental  Communion  with  a 
church  involve  approval  of  it.s  errors?  J31.  Is  the  Communion  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  that  of  a  particular  Church  ?  J  32.  Does  Baptism  ncces.sarily  precede 
the  Lord's  Supper?  §33.  2Thess.  iii.  6-15.  "Walking  disorderly."  §34.  Prac- 
tical views. 

§  29.   Close  Communion. 

The  Baptists,  as  a  denomination,  and  certain  of  the 
smaller  Presbyterian  Cliurclies,  e.  g.,  tlie  Associate  Re- 
formed, profess  and  practice  what  is  called  close  or  strict 
communion;  whilst  all  other  Evangelical  Protestant 
Churches  -profess  and  practice  what  is  called  open  or 
Catholic  communion. 

As  here  used,  the  term  communion  has  reference  exclu- 
sively to  joint-participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Open 
communionists  admit  and  invite  all  professed  believers 
whom  they  regard  as  belonging  to  the  Catholic  Church 
visible  to  a  joint-participation  with  themselves  in  the  ordi- 
nance ;  looking  upon  the  table,  as  the  table  of  their  com- 
mon Lord ;  and  participation  in  the  Supper  as  intended 
to  exhibit  to  the  world  the  real  unity  of  the  Church  visi- 
ble, notwithstanding  its  division  into  denominations. 

The  position  of  the  Baptists,  as  a  denomination — and 
we  use  this  expression  advisedly,  because  some  of  their 
most  eminent  ministers,  such  as  John  Bunyan  and  Robert 
Hall,  of  the  past,  and  Charles  Spurgeon  of  the  present 
generation,  repudiate  close  communion, —  is  thus  set  forth 
in  Dr.  Hiscox's  "  Baptist  Church  Directory,"  a  work  of 
acknowledged  authority  in  the  denomination. 

"As  to  the  subjects  of  communion,  they  (the  Baptists) 
believe  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  partaken  of  by 


64  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

members  of  the  Church  alone;  being  such  persons  as  are 
regenerated,  and  baptized  on  a  profession  of  their  faith  in 
Christ,  and  are  walking  in  the  faith  and  fellowship  of  the 
gospel.  Consequently,  neither  unregenerate  persons,  nor 
icnhaptized  persons,  though  regenerate,  nor  persons  walk- 
ing disorderly  and  contrary  to  the  Gospel,  even  though 
baptized,  can  properly  be  invited  to  partake  of  this  ordi- 
nance. Therefore  Baptists  do  not  invite  sprinkled  mem- 
bers of  Pedo-Baptist  churches  to  their  communion,  because 
such  persons  are  not  Scrip turally  baptized;  nor  do  they 
invite  immersed  members  of  Pedo-Baptist  churches,  be- 
cause such  persons  are  walking  disorderly  as  the  disciples 
of  Christ,  by  holding  membership  in,  and  walking  in 
fellowship  with  churches  which  receive  sprinkling  instead 
of  baptism,  thereby  sanctioning  and  sustaining  a  perversion 
of  Christ's  ordinance,  and  a  disobedience  to  his  command. 
For  the  same  reason  they  decline  to  commune  in  Pedo-Bap- 
tist churches,  as  being  contrary  to  good  order."  {Hiscoxs 
Baptist  Church  Directory,  pp.  180,  181.)  The  practice 
in  some  minor  particulars  may  vary  in  certain  churches, 
but  the  above  is,  we  believe,  a  fair  statement  of  the  faith 
and  practice  of  the  Baptists,  as  a  denomination. 

Among  the  Associate  Eeformed,  none  others  are  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  table,  but  such  as  are  communicants 
in  good  standing  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church ; — 
and  close  communion  was  once  universally,  and  is  now 
generally,  enforced,  by  the  use  of  "  tokens,"  distributed 
before-hand  by  the  officers  of  the  church,  and  required  to 
be  shown,  at  the  table,  before  the  elements  would  be  served 
to  the  person  wishing  to  commune. 

Of  the  practical  working  of  this  doctrine  of  close  com- 
munion, let  the  reader  take  an  example  or  two.  Dr.  Jno. 
M.  Mason,  whilst  living,  a  minister  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  in  New  York,  relates  the  following  incident 
as  having  occurred  in  his  own  experience :  "  He  had 
been  distributing  tokens  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. After  the  congregation  had  retired,  he  perceived  a 
young  woman  at  the  lower  end  of  an  aisle  reclin- 
ing on  a  pew  in  a  pensive  attitude.  As  he  approached 
her,  she  said,  '  Sir,  I  am  afraid  I  have  done  wrong.'    Why, 


Close  Com7aunion.  65 

what  have  you  done  ?  '  I  went  up  with  the  communicants, 
and  received  a  token,  but  am  not  a  member  of  your  church  ; 
and  I  could  not  be  at  rest  till  I  spoke  to  you  about 
it.'  To  what  church  do  you  belong?  'To  the  Dutch 
Church ;  and,  if  you  wish  it,  I  can  satisfy  you  of  my 
character  and  standing  there.'  But  what  made  you  come 
for  a  token  without  mentioning  the  matter  before  ?  '  I 
had  not  an  opportunity,  as  I  did  not  know  in  time  that 
your  communion  was  to  be  next  Lord's  day.  I  am  sorry 
if  I  have  done  wrong ;  but  I  expect  to  leave  the  city  on 
Tuesday,  and  to  bo  absent,  I  cannot  tell  how  long,  in  a 
part  of  the  country  where  I  shall  have  no  opportunity  of 
communing ;  and  I  wished,  once  more  before  I  went  away, 
to  join  with  Christians  in  showing  forth  my  Saviour's 
death.'  He  consulted  a  moment  with  the  church-officers 
who  were  still  present ;  and  it  was  thought  most  expedient 
not  to  grant  her  request.  He  communicated  this  answer  as 
gantly  as  possible  to  the  modest  petitioner.  She  said  not 
another  word ;  but  with  one  hand  giving  back  the  token, 
and  with  the  other  putting  up  her  kerchief  to  her  eyes, 
she  turned  away,  struggling  with  her  anguish,  and  the 
tears  streaming  down  her  cheeks.  How  did  his  heart 
smite  him !  He  went  home  exclaiming  to  himself.  Can 
this  be  right  ?  Is  it  possible  that  such  is  the  law  in  the 
Redeemer's  house  ?  It  quickened  his  inquiries  ;  and  his 
inquiries  strengthened  his  doubts ;  and  have  terminated 
in  the  conviction  that  it  was  altogether  wrong."  {Mason's 
Works.    Vol.  I.,  pp.  8,  9.) 

Take  an  example,  now,  of  the  practical  working  of  this 
doctrine,  as  held  amongst  the  Baptists.  The  author's  early 
years  were  passed  in  a  village  in  which  there  was  no 
Church  practising  close  communion,  and  hence  his  atten- 
tion was  never  turned  to  the  subject  until  after  he  had 
completed  his  college  course.  Then,  in  the  providence  of 
God,  his  lot  was  cast  in  a  part  of  the  country  in  which  the 
Baptist,  Methodist,  Episcopal,  and  Presbyterian  Churches 
all  existed,  but  each  so  feeble  as  to  be  able  to  secure 
preaching  but  a  part  of  the  time.  Hence  the  practice  was 
common  of  the  different  denominations  worshiping  togeth- 
er.    On  a  certain  Saturday,  the  author  had  attended  pub- 


66  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

lie  worship  in  a  Baptist  Churcli  in  the  neighborhood, 
when,  after  the  usual  service,  the  Church  was  convened 
for  business  ;  and  he,  with  several  others  not  members  of 
the  Baptist  Church,  remained  as  spectators.  The  busi- 
ness in  hand  was  the  trial  of  one  of  the  oldest  members 
for  the  offence  of  communing  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
several  months  before.  His  trial  had  been  begun  a  fort- 
night previous,  and  confessing  the  charge,  he  had  been 
provisionally  condemned,  but  allowed  time  for  further  re- 
flection. In  the  course  of  the  proceedings,  the  Pastor  and 
several  of  the  members  acknowledged  publicly,  that  the 
accused  had  been  for  many  years,  one  of  their  best  mem- 
bers ;  that  his  walk  and  conversation  had  been  eminently 
Christian ;  his  only  offence  being  the  act  for  which  he  was 
on  trial.  And  he  was  urged  again  and  again  to  pro- 
mise that  he  would  not  repeat  the  act ;  and  on  this  con- 
dition he  was  offered  immunity  for  the  past.  I  shall  al- 
ways remember  the  good  old  man's  reply.  With  trem- 
bling voice  and  tearful  eyes,  he  said :  ''  Brethren,  I  can- 
not give  that  promise.  When  I  communed  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  last  fall,  the  Spirit  of  God  was  working 
in  power  among  the  people ;  saints  were  rejoicing*  in  his 
presence,  and  sinners  were  turning  unto  God.  And  I 
felt  very  much  as  I  suppose  Peter  did,  in  the  house  of 
Cornelius.  '  Forasmuch,  then,  as  God  gave  them  the 
like  gifts  as  he  did  unto  us  who  believed  on  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  what  was  I,  that  I  could  withstand  God  ? ' 
(Acts  xi.  17.)  When  the  invitation  was  given  to  the 
Lord's  table — their  Lord,  as  well  as  mine — I  went  for- 
ward and  communed :  and  in  similar  circumstances,  I 
must  do  the  same  thing  again."  "And  they  cast  him 
out "  (Jno.  ix.  34),  and  that  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote 
of  the  Church.  And  thenceforward,  that  good  man,  con- 
fessedly one  of  the  best  Christians  they  had  among  them, 
was  to  that  Church  "  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 
(Matt,  xviii.  17.) 

I  will  do  that  Church  the  justice  to  say,  that  they  did 
not  act  hastily  in  this  matter,  under  the  influence  of  pas- 
sion suddenly  aroused ;  and  that  they  took  the  course 
they  did  evidently  with  deep  regret:   and  further,  that 


Does  Communion  involve  Approval  of  Errors  ?      G7 

if  the  law  of  close  communion  be  the  law  of  the  Church, 
I  do  not  see  how  they  could  consistently  have  done  any- 
thing else  than  what  they  did.  But  these  admissions  only 
bring  up  the  c^uestion  with  greater  distinctness,  and  urge 
its  settlement  with  .greater  power — Is  this  thing  righl? 
Is  close  communion  the  law  of  Grod's  house  ? 

Nearly  fifty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  incident  re- 
lated above  occurred,  and  during  these  years  I  have 
studied  the  question  with  care ;  and  to-day,  I  give  the 
same  answer  I  gave  then  :  the  thing  is  not  right :  Close 
communion  is  not  the  law  of  God's  house. 

§  30.  Does  Sacramental  Communion  with  a   Church  in- 
volve approval  of  its  errors  ? 

The  principal  ground  upon  which  the  Associate  Re- 
formed justify  their  practice  of  close  communion  is,  that 
open  communion  with  other  Churches  involves  approval 
of  their  errors  :  or,  at  the  least,  it  destroys  the  force,  and 
shackles  the  freedom  of  a  faithful  testimony  to  Christ 
and  his  truth. 

"  The  purest  Churches  under  heaven  are  subject  both  to 
mixture  and  error."  {Prcsb.  Coii.  of  Faith,  Ch.  xxv.  §5.) 
This  is  true  to-day  ;  it  has  been  true  in  all  the  past,  and 
it  will  be  true  as  long  as  the  Church  exists  on  earth. 
Abundant  proof  of  this  is  furnished  by  our  Lord's  exposi- 
tion of  his  parables,  "  the  wheat  and  the  tares,"  and  "  the 
drag  net,"  (Matt,  xiii.) ;  together  with  the  Epistles  to  the 
seven  Churches  in  Asia,  (Eev.  iv.  and  iii.),  not  one  of 
which  was  found  perfect;  whilst  several  of  them  are 
charged  with  serious  errors  in  faith  and  practice.  If, 
then,  the  principle  stated  above  be  a  sound  one,  there  is 
an  end  to  all  inter-communion  between  the  several 
Churches  which  make  up  the  Catholic  Church  visible. 
And  further,  if  the  principle  be  true  in  its  application  to 
Churches,  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  equally 
true  in  its  application  to  individual  Christians.  And 
then,  until  we  can  find  a  Church,  none  of  whose  members 
are  fairly  chargeable  with  error  in  faith  or  practice,  there 
is  an  end  to  communion,  altogether.  But  is  the  principle 
a  sound  one? 


68  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Let  the  reader  notice  that  the  question  under  examina- 
tion does  not  concern  communion  in  general,  but  commu- 
nion in  the  Lord's  Supper  alone.  The  Associate  Reformed 
hold  communion  freely  with  other  Presbyterians  in  public 
prayer,  in  preaching  the  Gospel,  and  in  many  other  good 
works.  It  is  only  communion  in  the  Lord's  Supper  they 
refuse.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  sacrament  in  which  truth 
and  duty  are  set  forth  in  symbol.  Truth  can  be  set  forth 
in  symbol  as  certainly  and  as  definitely  as  in  writing,  and 
a  fair  construction  requires  us  to  understand  the  commu- 
nion implied  in  the  joint  celebration  of  such  a  rite  to  be 
limited  by  the  symbolic  record  which  the  rite  contains. 

On  this  principle  Paul  decides  a  case  submitted  to  him 
by  the  Church  at  Corinth.  "If  any  of  them  that  believe 
not  bid  you  to  a  feast,  and  ye  be  disposed  to  go,  whatever 
is  set  before  you,  eat,  asking  no  questions,  for  conscience' 
sake :  but  if  any  man  say  unto  you.  This  is  offered  in 
sacrifice  unto  idols,  eat  not."  (1  Cor.  x.  27,  28.)  "  The 
Apostle  here  resolves  a  case  of  conscience,  viz. :  A  Pagan 
invites  his  Christian  neighbor  to  an  entertainment. — May 
he  lawfully  accept  the  invitation  ?  The  inviter  sustains  a 
three-fold  character, — as  a  host,  as  an  infidel,  and  as  an 
idolater.  Thus  situated,  he  asks  his  Christian  friend  to 
eat  with  him.  What  shall  I  do  ?  Go,  says  the  Apostle, 
if  you  be  so  inclined.  But  how  shall  I  conduct  myself 
with  regard  to  my  food ;  as  in  all  probability  some  of  the 
dishes  will  be  made  up  of  flesh  which  has  been  sacrificed 
to  idols  ?  Eaise  no  scruples,  rejoins  the  Apostle.  You 
were  invited  to  dine  ;  you  go  to  dine.  Your  communion 
with  your  host  is  neither  in  his  infidelity,  nor  in  his  idola- 
try;  but  simply  in  his  dinner.  What,  if  part  of  the  din- 
ner has  been  offered  to  idols  ?  That  is  no  concern  of 
yours.  The  creature  is  in  itself  good ;  it  is  God's  crea- 
ture :  it  was  granted  to  you  for  food ;  its  blood  having 
been  shed  before  an  idol's  altar  injures  the  flesh  no  more 
than  if  it  had  been  shed  in  the  slaughter-house.  You  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it  but  as  meat.  Eeceive  it  with  thank- 
fulness and  ask  no  questions.  But  if  my  host  should  tell 
me,  this  meat  is  a  sacrifice  to  his  idol-god?  the  case  is 
entirely  altered.      There  is  a  new  condition  introduced. 


Docs  Communion  involve  Approval  of  Errors  ?     69 

You  arc  now  invited  to  fellowsliip  not  only  in  meat,  but 
in  idolatry  also.  Your  course  is  plain.  Eat  not.  Not  a 
mouthful ;  or  you  are  a  partaker  in  your  neighbor's  sin." 
"  The  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  relieves  us  at  once  from 
the  difficulty  started  by  the  objection  under  review,  and 
furnishes  us  with  a  sure  and  easy  rule  of  conscience  in  re- 
gard to  Church-fellowship,  viz. :  '  No  particular^  act  of 
Communion  is  to  be  interpi'eted  as  reaching  beyond  itself, 
unless  it  be  coupled  with  other  acts  by  an  express  or 
known  condition.'  If,  therefore,  I  sit  down  at  the  table  of 
the  Lord  in  another  Church,  or  receive  one  of  her  mem- 
bers to  that  holy  table  in  my  own,  neither  my  act  nor  his 
can  fairly  be  construed  as  more  than  an  act  of  communion 
in  '  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.'  Neither  of  us  has 
by  virtue  of  that  act,  anything  to  do  with  the  defects  of 
our  respective  churches  in  other  matters."  (/.  M.  Masons 
Works,  vol.  i.,  pp.  297-299.) 

One  of  the  errors,  practically  the  chief  error,  with 
which  the  Associate  Reformed  charge  what  is  known  as 
"  the  Presbyterian  Church  "  in  the  United  States,  is  its 
use  in  its  public  worship  of  hymns  and  metrical  composi- 
tions other  than  "  the  Psalms  of  David,"  i.  e.,  Rouse's 
Version  of  those  Psalms.  I  speak  of  this  as,  practically, 
the  chief  error  charged,  since  these  churches,  adopting 
the  same  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  and  substantially  the 
same  "  Form  of  Government,"  have  for  many  years,  at 
times,  been  consulting  about  organic  union,  and  this 
question  of  psalmody  has  proved  the  chief  obstacle  in 
way  of  such  union.  Let  the  reader  now  turn  to  §28,  and 
notice  the  extent  of  the  symbolic  record  of  truth  con- 
tained in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  he  will  see'  that  the 
question  respecting  psalmody,  is  not  referred  to  in  that 
rite  in  the  remotest  way.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  ob- 
served in  the  Church  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years 
before  Rouse  was  born, — and  more  than  a  thousand  years 
before  the  language  Cmodern  English)  in  which  his  version 
of  David's  Psalms  is  given  had  an  existence.  Granting, 
now,  that  in  this  matter  Presbyterians  are  in  error ;  one 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  in  communing  in  a  Presby- 
terian church  cannot  be  considered  as  countenancin<T  that 


■  70  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

error,  without  utterly  disregarding  the  principle  laid 
down  by  inspired  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  x.  27,  28,  and  the  sound 
rules  for  interpreting  actions  observed  by  men  in  all  other 


§  31.  Is  the  Communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  that  of  a 
particular  Church  f 

The  Baptists  justify  their  practice  of  close  communion 
upon  two  grounds,  —  (1)  That  the  communion  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  distinctively,  the  communion  of  members 
of  the  same  particular  church  with  each  other,  and — (2) 
That  baptism  necessarily  precedes  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
as  members  of  Pedo-baptist  churches  have  never  been  bap- 
tized, they  cannot  rightfully  be  admitted  to  participation 
in  that  ordinance.  In  the  present  section  we  propose  to 
examine  the  first  of  these  grounds. 

''  We  consider  the  Lord's  Supper,  then,  the  symbol  of 
Church  relations.  When  we  say  this,  we  mean  that  there 
is  a  fellowship  in  Church  relations,  professed  with  those 
Christians,  with  whom  we  visibly  celebrate.  We  do  not 
say  that  this  is  everything  indicated,  for  then  its  chief  sig- 
nificance would  be  lost,  in  not  symbolizing  our  commun- 
ion with  the  blessed  Saviour  himself.  But  we  do  mean  that 
Church  fellowship  and  relations  are  uniformly  expressed 
by  it  with  all  our  fellow-communicants.  It  implies  for 
example,  the  exercise  of  that  peculiar  watchful  and  disci- 
plinary love,  which  it  is  the  special  province  of  visible 
Church  members,  mutually  to  exercise  among  each  other, 
as  it  is  the  province  of  none  beside,  by  which  the  Lord's 
table  is  preserved  from  the  approach  of  notoriously  im- 
proper persons.  Hence,  '  with  such  a  one,  no  not  to  eat,' 
i.  e.,  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he 
was  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  member  of  the  Church." 
("  Communion,"  hy  T.  F.  Curtis,  Professor  of  Theology, 
Howard  College,  Ala.  Published  hy  the  American  Bap- 
tist Publication  Society,  p.  88.) 

"  As  to  the  second  class  of  symbols,  i.  e.,  that  of  the 
fellowship  of  Christians,  as  such,  and  apart  from  their  be- 
longing to  any  visible  Church  on  earth,  we  have  seen  that 


Is  the  Lord's  Supper  that  of  a  Particular  Church?  71 

those  are  many  and  various.  Uniting  in  prayer,  in  wor- 
ship, in  efforts  to  spread  the  cause  of  Christ,  or  in  the 
contributions  of  Christian  charity.  With  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  is  intended,  iirst  of  all,  to  symbohze  our 
Communion  with  the  Saviour,  and  participation  in  the 
fruits  of  his  death,  and  in  the  hohness  which  he  bestows. 
But  next  to  that,  it  expresses  in  regard  to  those  with 
whom  we  partake  of  it,  more  than  a  mere  Christian,  a 
Church  fellowship."  {Curtis  on  Communion,  p.  134.) 

Prof.  Curtis,  as  will  be  seen  on  a  careful  reading  of  the 
above  extracts,  assumes  the  ground  that  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, as  an  ordinance,  properly  belonging  to  the  particular 
Church,  such  as  the  Cumberland  St.  Church,  Norfolk,  or 
the  First  Church,  Richmond,  and  the  communion  which 
it  expresses, — besides  communion  with  Christ,— is  the 
communion  distinctively  of  the  members  of  the  same  par- 
ticular churches  with  each  other. 

1.  The  principal  arguments  by  which  Prof.  Curtis  seeks 
to  establish  this  proposition,  as  expressed  in  his  own 
words,  are : — 

(1)  "That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  symbol  of  Church 
relations,  subsisting  between  those  who  unite  together  in 
the  participation  of  it,  which  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  6ur 
present  purpose  to  prove,  can  be  shown  in  many  ways. 
For  it  presupposes  that  watchfulness  and  discipline  of 
holy  affection,  by  which  improper  persons  are  kept  back 
from  the  number  of  communicants.  This  all  will  admit ; 
nor  can  any  deny,  that  to  the  Church  of  Christ  as  such, 
and  to  them  alone,  has  the  power  of  discipline  been  con- 
fided." {Communion,  p.  136.)  Here,  as  in  other  places  in 
his  treatise  on  Communion,  Prof.  Curtis  uses  the  word 
Church  in  two  entirely  distinct  senses,  viz. :  in  the  sense 
of  a  particular  church,  and  in  the  other  and  different  sense 
of  the  Baptist  Church,  made  up  of  all  the  particular 
churches  of  that  denomination  in  the  world.  Communion, 
as  it  is  practised  in  different  particular  Baptist  churches, 
is  not  limited  to  the  bounds  of  a  particular  church,  but 
embraces  the  Baptist  Church  as  a  w^hole.  A  member  of 
the  Cumberland  Street  Baptist  Church,  Norfolk,  if  spend- 
ing a  Sabbath   in   Bichmond,  and  worshiping  witli   the 


72  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sujopcr. 

First  Baptist  Church  of  that  city,  is  invited  and  expected 
to  commune  in  that  church  as  freely  as  in  his  own.  The 
pastor,  of  one  particular  Baptist  charch,  who  is  a  member 
of  that  particular  church  under  the  system  of  independency 
in  church  government,  often  administers  the  communion 
in  another  church.  And  yet,  neither  the  visiting  member 
or  minister  is  allowed  to  vote  in  cases  of  discipline,  in  any 
church  but  the  particular  church  to  which  he  belongs. 
Thus  universal  Baptist  practice  refutes  the  proposition, 
that  the  right  to  communion  and  the  right  to  take  part  in 
the  discipline  of  the  church  are  coextensive ;  and  that  par- 
ticipation in  the  Lord's  Supper  ''  presupposes  that  watch- 
fulness, and  discipline  of  holy  affection,  by  which  improper 
persons  are  kept  back  from  the  number  of  communicants." 

(2)  "  Admission  to  the  Lord's  table,  implies  admission 
to  it  by  a  particular  church,  and  this,  in  fact,  settles  the 
question  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  church  ordinance." 
{Communion,  p.  136.)  That  the  fact  stated  may  serve 
Prof,  Curtis'  purpose,  by  "  church  ordinance,"  he  must 
mean  the  ordinance  of  a  particular  church.  Does  the 
fact  that  admission  to  baptism  is  the  act  of  a  particular 
church,  settle  the  question  that  baptism  is  a  church  ordi- 
nance ?  If  so,  how  comes  it  that  a  member  admitted  by 
baptism  to  membership  in  a  particular  church,  if  he 
removes  his  residence,  is  admitted  into  another  church 
upon  the  credit  of  "a  letter  of  dismission,"  and  by  a  sim- 
ple vote  of  the  church  receiving  him,  without  baptism  ? 
Entering  a  particular  house  by  the  door  of  that  house, 
will  not  place  a  person  inside  a  second  house,  without  pass- 
ing through  the  door  of  the  second  house  also. 

(3)  "  The  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  by  our  Saviour 
at  one  of  those  Paschal  feasts  with  the  twelve,  his  more 
especial  family  of  disciples,  and  no  others  around  him. 
Each  Christian  church  is  a  family  of  such  disciples  now ; 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  was  so  instituted  as  to  express,  not 
merely  the  Christian,  but  the  Church  fellowship  " — i.  e., 
the  fellowship  of  a  particular  church, — "  we  say,  of  those 
who  unite  in  it  at  the  same  table."  {Communion,  p.  137.) 
Prof.  Curtis  frequently  dwells  upon  the  analogy  between 
a  family,  as  compared  with  mankind  in  general,  and  a 


/i-  the  Lord's  Supjycr  tJiat  of  a  Particular  Church  7  73 

particular  church,  as  compared  with  the  whole  body  of 
Christ's  disciples  in  the  world.  On  the  statement  made 
above,  respecting  our  Lord's  course  at  the  institution  of 
the  Supper,  we  remark : — If  the  twelve  disciples  consti- 
tuted Christ's  "especial  family,"  that  family  was  a  body 
altogether  dilferent  from  the  particular  church  of  Jerusa- 
lem, for  that  church,  as  we  learn  from  Acts  i.  15,  consisted 
of,  not  twelve,  but  120  members; — and  so  if  thearguTuent 
proves  anything,  it  proves  far  too  much  for  Prof.  Curtis' 
purpose. 

In  order  that  Prof.  Curtis'  statement  may  correspond 
with  the  universal  practice  of  his  denomination,  it  must 
read, — not  that  the  communion  implied  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  distinctively  that  which  belongs  to  a  particular 
church,  and  so  that  ordinance  is  a  "  church  ordinance ;  " 
but,  that  this  communion  is  distinctively  that  which 
belongs  to  a  denomination,  and  so,  the  ordinance  is  a 
denominational  ordinance; — and  in  so  far  as  correctly 
understood,  and  rightfully  administered — a  Baptist  ordi- 
nance. When  thus  fairly  stated,  in  plain  terms,  the 
proposition  has  an  ugly  look  as  coming  from  a  Christian 
man ;  and  we  do  not  wonder  that  Prof.  Curtis  tried  to 
substitute  for  it  a  proposition  liable  to  less  serious  objection. 

2.  As  remarked  in  the  last  section,  "  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  sacrament  in  which  truth  and  duty  are  set  forth  in 
symbol.  Truth  can  be  set  forth  in  symbol  as  certainly, 
and  as  definitely  as  in  writing."  In  all  its  particulars  it 
has  been  ordered  by  the  Lord  ;  and  the  lessons  conveyed  in 
its  symbolic  elements  and  acts,  are  as  truly  his  teaching 
as  the  lessons  given  us  in  the  written  Scriptures.  What 
we  have  to  do,  and  all  we  have  to  do,  is  carefully  to  study 
the  rite,  just  as  he  has  given  it  to  us;  and  to  explain  its 
lessons  just  as  they  are  explained  in  the  Scriptures.  This 
we  have  endeavored  to  do  in  the  preceding  chapters  of 
this  work, — and  a  brief  summary  of  the  results,  as  they 
bear  upon  the  nature  of  the  communion  involved  in  par- 
taking of  the  ordinance  is  given  in  section  28. 

The  Baptist,  Methodist,  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian 
'churches  hold  in  common  much  of  God's  truth,  and  by  far 
the  most  important  part  of  that  truth.  This  "  common 
4 


74  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

faith"  constitutes  the  blessed  bond  of  unity, by  which  they 
are  call  bound  together  in  the  one  CatlioUc  Church  visible. 
Besides  this,  each  of  them  hold  certain  truths  respecting 
doctrine  and  government  peculiar  to  itself.  These  consti- 
tute their  denominational  creeds.  I,  as  a  Presbyterian, 
may  and  do  think  ray  denominational  creed  very  import- 
ant, and  thoroughly  scriptural, — but  God  forbid  that  I 
should  ever  put  it,  or  any  part  of  it,  on  a  par  with  "  the 
common  faith."  I  love  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  the 
parity  of  the  ministry,  but  I  love  infinitely  more  the  doctrine 
of  "  Christ  and  him  crucified." 

I  turn  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  now,  and  as  I  take  in  the 
truth  it  teaches,  and  so,  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  com- 
munion it  expresses,  I  ask  myself — Is  there  anything  dis- 
tinctively Presbyterian  about  it? — Anything  to  mark  it  as 
a  Presbyterian  ordinance,  and  badge  of  membership  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ? — And  I  answer  unhesitatingly — 
No.  And  so  must  I  answer  the  question  if  the  Episcopal, 
or  Methodist,  or  Baptist  Church  be  substituted  for  the 
Presbyterian.  The  range  of  its  truths  is  higher  up  than 
that  of  any  of  our  denominational  creeds, — is  nearer  heaven 
than  they. 

§  32.  Does  Bajjtism  necessarily  precede  the  Lord's  Supper  f 

On  this  question  Prof.  Curtis  writes : — The  Lord's  Sup- 
per "  in  its  relation  to  Baptism,  is  rather  like  the  ratifica- 
tion of  an  old  deed,  than  the  execution  of  a  new  one  : — the 
acknowledgment  of  a  bond,  repeated  again  and  again  at 
different  times  and  places,  all  having  reference  to  some  one 
original  and  permanent  document.  On  this  account  it  is 
that  there  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  any 
person  coming  unbaptized  to  the  Lord's  Table.  Those  who 
knowingly  receive  this  ordinance  without  baptism,  act  con- 
trary to  all  the  precedents  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  to  the 
instituted  relations  of  the  symbols."  {Communion, p.  74.) 

Dr.  Hiscox  writes — "  There  exists  between  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists,  a  difference  of  opinion  respecting  the  question 
of  Church  Communion,  as  to  who  are  properly  qualified  to 
partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  what  are  the  scriptural 


Does  Baptism  necessarily  precede  ilie  Lord's  Supper  ?    75 

qualifications.  Both  hold  that  baptism  necessarily  pre- 
cedes the  coinmunion  as  a  qualification  for  its  privileges, 
and  that  baptized  believers  in  Christ  only,  are  to  be  invited 
to  it.  But  what  is  Baptism?  Pedobaptists  assert  that 
persons  sprinkled,  poured  upon,  or  immersed,  are  properly- 
baptized,  and  therefore  invite  such  persons  to  the  Lord's 
table.  Baptists,  however,  that  persons  immersed  onlij  are 
baptized,  and  therefore  invite  none  others  to  the  Lord's 
table."  {Baptist  Cliurch  Directory,  p.  210.) 

1.  In  the  above  extracts,  the  question — Does  baptism 
necessarily  precede  the  Lord's  Supper?  is  answered  in  the 
affirmative;  and  Dr.  Hiscox  says  that  Pedobaptists  and 
Baptists  "  both  hold  that  baptism  necessarily  precedes  the 
communion  as  a  qualification  for  its  privileges,  and  that 
baptized  believers  in  Christ  only  are  to  be  invited  to  it." 
This  statement  we  have  often  heard  repeated  by  Baptists, 
when  the  question  of  Communion  was  under  discussion. 

On  behalf  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  we  enter  our  dis- 
tinct and  emphatic  denial  of  it; — and  our  appeal,  in 
attempting  to  settle  the  matter,  shall  be,  not  to  the  state- 
ment of  some  individual  Presbyterian  minister,  who  has 
spoken  probably  without  much  reflection  on  the  subject; 
but  to  the  standards  of  the  Church. 

In  the  Confession  of  Faith  we  read — "Sacraments  are 
holy  signs  and  seals  of  the  Covenant  of  grace,  immediately 
instituted  by  God,  to  represent  Christ  and  his  benefits,  and 
to  confirm  our  interest  in  him :  as  also  to  put  a  visible  dif- 
ference between  those  that  belong  unto  the  church,  and  the 
rest  of  the  world;  and  solemnly  to  engage  them  to  the 
service  of  God  in  Christ."  (Ch.  xxvii.  1.) 

"  Our  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  wherein  he  was  betrayed, 
instituted  the  sacrament  of  his  body  and  blood,  called  the 
Lord's  Supper,  to  be  observed  in  his  church,  unto  the  end 
of  the  world ;  for  the  perpetual  remembrance  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself  in  his  death,  the  sealing  all  benefits  thereof 
unto  true  believers,  their  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth 
in  him,  their  further  engagement  in,  and  to  all  duties  which 
they  owe  unto  him ;  and  to  be  a  bond  and  pledge  of  their 
Communion  with  him,  as  members  of  his  mystical  body." 
(Ch.  xxix.  Art.  1.) 


76  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Stqj^er,:  ^ 

"  The  visible  Church,  wliich  is  also  Catholic  or  universal 
under  the  gospel,  (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  under  the 
law)  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  pro- 
fess the  true  religion,  together  with  their  children."  (Ch. 
XXV.  Art.  2.) 

According  to  the  plain  teaching  of  the  above-quoted 
articles,  communion  at  the  Lord's  Table  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  is  open  to  allprofessed  believers,  who  belong  to 
the  Catholic  Church  visible;  and  that  Church  embraces 
all  that  embrace  the  true  religion. 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Hodge  writes  : — "  It  is  easy  to  see 
how,  according  to  the  evangelical  system,  the  question. 
What  is  a  true  Church  ?  is  to  be  answered.  Starting  with 
the  principle  that  all  men  are  sinners,  that  the  only  method 
of  salvation  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  all  who 
believe  in  him,  and  show  the  fruits  of  faith  in  a  holy  life, 
are  the  children  of  God,  the  called  according  to  his  pur- 
pose, that  is,  in"  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
kletoi,  the  ekklesia,  that  system  must  teach  that  all  true 
believers  are  members  of  the  true  Church,  and  all  profes- 
sors of  the  true  faith  are  members  of  the  visible  Church. 
This  is  the  only  conclusion  to  which  that  system  can  lead. 
And  therefore  the  only  essential  mark  of  a  true  Church 
which  it  can  admit,  is  the  profession  of  the  true  religion. 
Any  individual  man  who  makes  a  credible  profession  of 
religion  we  are  bound  to  regard  as  a  Christian ;  and  any 
society  of  such  men,  united  for  the  purpose  of  worship  and 
discipline,  we  are  bound  to  regard  as  a  Church.  As  there 
is  endless  diversity  as  to  the  degree  of  exactness 
with  which  individual  Christians  conform  in  their  doc- 
trines, spirit,  and  deportment,  to  the  word  of  God,  so  there 
is  great  diversity  as  to  the  degree  in  which  the  different 
Churches  conform  to  the  same  standard.  But  as  in  the 
case  of  the  individual  professor  we  can  reject  none  who  does 
not  reject  Christ,  so  in  regard  to  Churches,  we  can  disown 
none  that  hold  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel." 

"Against  this  simple  and  decisive  test  of  a  true  Church 
it  is  objected,  that  it  is  too  latitudinarian.  The  force  of 
this  objection  depends  upon  the  standard  of  liberality 
adopted.       It   is,    of  course,    too   latitudinarian   for   the 


Does  Baptism  lucessarihj  precede  the  Lord's  Supper  ?    77 

Romanist  and  High  Churchman,  as  well  as  for  rigid  sec- 
tarians. But  is  it  more  liberal  than  the  Bible,  or  than 
our  own  Confession  of  Faith  ?  Let  any  man  decide  this 
question  by  ascertaining  what  the  Bible  teaches  as  the  true 
answer  to  the  questions,  What  is  a  Christian  ?  And, 
What  is  a  Church  ?  You  cannot  possibly  make  your  no- 
tion of  a  Church  narrower  than  your  notion  of  a  Christian. 
If  a  true  Christian  is  a  true  believer,  and  a  professed  be- 
liever is  a  professing  Christian,  then  of  course  a  true 
Church  is  a  body  of  true  Christians,  a  professing  or  Visi- 
ble Church  is  a  body  of  professing  Christians.  This  is  the 
precise  doctrine  of  our  standards,  which  teach  that  the 
Church  '  consists  of  all  those  who  proifess  the  true  reli- 
gion.' "  [Hodges  Essays  and  JReviews,  p.  209.) 

But  some  may  say,  you  require  membership  in  the 
Church  visible  as  a  conilition  of  communion,  and  you  hold 
that  baptism  is  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  tliat  Church,  so 
that  after  all,  your  position  is  substantially  the  same  with 
that  of  the  Baptist. — By  no  means, — we  hold  that  bap- 
tism is  by  divine  appointment  the  orderly  means  of  enter- 
ing the  Church  visible ;  but  not  that  it  is  obligatory,  in  such 
a  sense  that  no  man  can  be  a  member  of  the  Church  with- 
out it.  Baptism  stands  related  to  salvation,  as  it  stands 
related  to  the  Church.  Our  Lord  has  said,  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  (Mark  xvi.  16.) 
Yet  no  Protestant  understands  him  to  teach  that  no  man 
can  be  saved,  can  be  a  Christian,  without  baptism.  As  it 
stands  related  to  salvation,  baptism  "  has  the  necessity  of 
precept,  not  the  necessity  of  a  means  sine  qva  non." 
(Hodge).  As  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to  be  a  Christian 
without  baptism,  so  it  is  possible  for  him  to  be  a  member 
of  'the  Church  without  it. 

To  make  our  meaning  plain,  let  us  suppose  the  case  of 
a  number  of  persons  who  have  associated  themselves  to- 

f3ther  for  the  purposes  of  divine  worship  and  godly  living; 
hey  have  published  their  creed,  and  that  creed  embodies 
all  of  God's  truth  which  comes  properly  under  the  designa- 
tion of  "  the  common  faith,"  "  the  true  religion."  In  their 
lives  they  present  all  the  Scriptui^al  marks  of  true  be- 
lievers.    But*  influenced  by  arguments  which  are  satisfao  ■ 


78  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

tory  to  them,  though  anything  else  than  satisfactory  to  us, 
they  reject  the  ordinance  of  baptism  altogether;  or,  they 
substitute  for  it  a  rite  which  in  our  view  is  not  valid  bap- 
tism,— immersion  in  dry  sand,  for  example,  which  some 
Baptist  writers  have  spoken  of  as  baptism  because  it  was 
an  immersion.  They  are  not  guilty  of  any  wilful  disre- 
gard of  Christ's  command,  or  contempt  for  his  authority, 
such  as  would  imply  a  lack  of  true  faith  in  him,  or  hearty 
submission  to  his  authority ;  but  simply,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  mistaken  views,  they  have  never  been  baptized. 
How  would  Presbyterians  treat  the  members  of  such  a 
body,  in  the  matter  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  Table  ? 
We  answer, — If  they  act  up  to  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
— they  must  acknowledge  them  to  belong  to  the  Catholic 
Church  visible,  for  they  "profess  the  true  religion;" — 
they  must  acknowledge  them  to  be  true  believers,  for 
their  Christian  life  furnishes  the  Scriptural  proof  of  the 
I'act ;  and  they  must  admit  them  to  communion  at  the 
Lord's  Table ;  and  this,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  ac- 
cording to  Presbyterian  views  they  have  never  been 
baptized. 

Let  the  reader  notice,  now,  that  in  the  case  supposed, 
the  Presbyterian  Church  would  stand  related  to  the  mem- 
bers of  this  new  body,  precisely  as  the  Baptist  Church 
stands  related  to  the  Presbyterians  to-day : — admitting 
that  theirs  was  a  true  Church  of  Christ ;  that  their  creed 
embraced  all  "the  common  faith;"  that  their  Christian 
lives  bore  testimony  to  their  personal  faith ;  the  only  ob- 
jection to  them  being  that  according  to  Presbyterian  views 
they  had  never  been  baptized.  And  their  course  toward 
them,  in  the  matter  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  Table, 
would  be  exactly  the  opposite  of  that  pursued  by  the  Bap- 
tists. It  cannot  be  true  then,  that  Baptists  occupy  Pres- 
byterian ground  in  their  doctrine  of  close  communion. 
The  question,  be  it  remembered,  is  respecting  communion 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  alone ; — and  this  is  the  only  ques- 
tion under  examination.  Is  the  question  asked,  how 
would  they  treat  a  member  of  such  a  body  if  he  applied 
for  membership  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  "We  answer, 
— They  would    undoubtedly  require   him  to   be  baptized; 


Docs  BaplisTii  necessarily  precede  tJie  Lord's  Supper  ?    79 

and  to  be  baptized  in  a  way  which  Presbyterians  look  upon 
as  baptism.  But  this  is  a  matter  with  which  we  have 
nothing  to  do  in  the  present  discussion. 

According  to  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  two 
conditions,  and  two  only,  are  pre-requisites  to  communion 
in  the  Lord's  Supper, — viz.:  (1)  Membership  in  the 
Catholic  Church  visible ;  and  (2)  a  credible  profession  of 
personal  faith  in  Christ.  And  hence,  in  the  two  cases 
often  proposed  by  Baptist  writers,  and  in  which  they 
speak  of  us  as  acting  inconsistently,  we  decide  as  follows  : 
(1)  Those  whom  we  have  reason  to  regard  as  true  believers, 
but  who  have  never  united  with  any  branch  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church  visible,  w^e  reject.  This  we  do,  not  because  we 
question  their  faith  in  Christ,  but  because  they  do  not  be- 
long to  the  visible  Church,  and  so,  have  no  right  to  its 
peculiar  privileges.  (2)  Members  of  our  own  Churches, 
admitted  by  baptism  in  their  infancy,  but  who  give  no 
credible  evidence  of  personal  faith  in  Christ,  we  reject. 
This  we  do,  not  because  they  lack  the  first-mentioned 
qualification,  i.  e.,  membership  in  the  visible  church,  but 
because  the  other  qualification,  i.  e.,  a  credible  profession 
of  personal  faith  in  Christ,  is  wanting. 

2.  Prof.  Curtis  writes — "  There  is  no  instance  in  the 
New  Testament  of  any  person  coming  unbaptized  to  the 
Lord's  table;" — and  Dr.  Hiscox  adds — "It  is  very  true 
that  neither  our  Saviour  nor  his  Apostles  did,  in  so  many 
Avords,  declare  that  no  unbaptized  person  coidd  partake  of 
the  Supper.  Neither  did  they  say  or  intimate  that  un- 
baptized persons  could  receive  the  Supper ;  nor  is  there 
the  most  distant  allusion  to  any  such  thing."  {Baptist 
Church  Directory,  p>.  219.) 

Of  course,  when  baptism  is  mentioned,  as  above,  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  intended, — and  not  some  one  or  other  of 
the  "  divers  w%ashings  "  {Gr.  baptis-ynois,  E.eh.  ix.  10).  of 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  ;— and  so  understanding 
the  matter,  we  take  issue  with  these  writers, — and  point 
them  to  the  case  of  the  twelve  communicants  present 
when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted.  Not  one  of  thera 
had  ever  received  Christian  baptism.  Christian  baptism  was 
not  instituted  until  after  Christ's  resurrection.     The  twelve 


80  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

were  members  of  the  Jewish  Church,  v/hich  was  the  true 
visible  Church  at  the  time,  and  until  it  consummated  its 
apostacy  in  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord,  and  they  were 
members  of  that  church  in  virtue  of  their  circumcision  in 
infancy.  [For  a  full  examination  of  this  point,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  "  The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,"  §52.)  They  had 
made  a  credible  profession  of  personal  faith  in  Christ,  by 
their  public  obedience  to  his  call  to  "  forsake  all  and  follow 
him," — and  on  these  grounds  the  Master  calls  them  to  his 
table.  In  so  doing  our  Lord  occupied  the  very  ground 
occupied  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  to-day, 

3.  Prof.  Curtis  writes — "  Those  who  knowingly  receive 
this  ordinance  (the  Lord's  Supper)  without  baptism,  act 
contrary  to  .  .  .  the  instituted  relation  of  the  symbols," 
— and  Dr.  Hiscox — "  Baptism  necessarily  precedes  the 
communion  as  a  qualification  for  its  privileges." 

(1)  What  are  the  great  truths  symbolized  in  the  two 
sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  Church  ?  We  answer, 
—The  sani)  great  truths  which  were  symbolized  in  the 
two  classes  of  rites,  purifications  and  sacrifices,  established 
in  the  Old  Testament  Church ;  and  these  truths  are 
Eegeneration  and  Atonement.  Christian  baptism,  is  in 
its  essential  nature,  but  a  rite  of  purification,  i.  e.,  of  con- 
sacration  to  God's  service,  (See  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  ch. 
ii.),  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  not  only  commemorates  the 
one  only  true,  atoning  sacrifice,  but  is  of  the  nature  of  "  a 
feast  on  a  sacrifice."  (See  §24.)  Now,  these  two  truths 
stand  in  no  such  relation  the  one  to  the  other,  that  the 
reception  of  the  one  necessarily  precedes  the  reception  of 
the  other. 

(2)  If  we  turn  from  the  symbolism  of  these  sacraments 
to  their  nature: — They  are  both  alike  seals  of  "the 
covenant. of  grace  ;  " — but  of  that  covenant  under  different 
forms.  Baptism,  which  in  Scripture  is  styled  "  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Christ"  (Col.  ii.  11,)  or  Christian  circumcision, 
is  the  .seal  of  that  covenant  in  its  Abrahamic  form  ; — the 
form  in  which  Grod  revealed  it  when  he  established  a 
Church  visible  in  the  world  distinct  from  the  family, — and 
for  this  reas.on  it  is  appropriate  that  it  should. serve  as  the 
initiatory  rite  of  that  church.     The  Lord's  Supper  is  the 


Walking/  Disorderly.  '81 

seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  in  the  form  of  what  our 
Lord  styles  "  the  New  Testament  "  (covenant).  The  New 
Covenant  is  a  revelation  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  in  the 
fullness  of  its  purposes  and  provisions  of  grace  for  lost 
men,  and  so,  it  is  appropriate  that  it  should  bo  constantly- 
kept  in  mind  in  this  form  by  the  Christian,  as  it  is  by  his 
frequent  attendance  at  the  Lord's  table.  That  there  is  a 
special  propriety  in  the  established  order  of  the  Church, 
that  baptism  shall  precede  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  freely 
concede ; — but  that  it  must,  in  all  instances  and  necessarily 
precede,  no  thoughtful  man  can  venture  to  affirm,  Avithout 
express  Scriptural  direction — and  this  Dr.  Hiscox  admits 
is  wanting — who  remembers  how  much  God  has  conceded 
to  *'  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts,"  (Matt.  xix.  8,)  and  the 
blindness  of  their  understandings ;  especially  in  mattera 
which  concern  the  external  frame-work  and  ordinances  of 
the  Church  visible. 

§  33.  2  Thess.  iii.  6-15.      Walking  disorderly. 

"  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradi- 
tion which  he  received  of  us.  For  yourselves  know  how 
ye  ought  to  follow  us ;  for  we  behaved  not  ourselves  dis- 
orderly among  you.  Neither  did  we  eat  any  man's  bread 
for  nought;  but  wrought  wnth  labor  and  travail  night  and 
day,  that  we  might  not  be  chargeable  to  any  of  you :  Not 
because  we  had  not  power,  but  to  make  ourselves  an  example 
unto  you  to  follow  us.  For  even  when  we  were  with  you, 
this  we  commanded  you,  if  any  would  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat.  For  we  hear  that  there  are  some  which 
w^alk  among  you  disorderly,  working  not  at  all,  but  are 
busy-bodies.  .  Now  them  that  are  such  we  command  and 
exhort  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  with  quietness  they 
work,  and  eat  their  own  bread.  But  ye  brethren,  be  not 
weary  in  well-doing.  And  if  any  man  obey  not  our  word 
by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  company  with 
him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed.  Yet  count  him  not  as  an 
enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a  brother."  (2  Thess.  iii. 
6-15.) 


82  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Dr.  Hiscox  writes — "  The  reason  why  Baptist  churches 
do  not  invite  immersed  members  of  Pedo-baptist  churches 
to  their  communion  is,  because  such  persons,  though  they 
have  been  Scripturally  baptized,  yet,  by  continuing  in  a 
church  which  practices  sprinkling  for  baptism,  thus  put- 
ting a  human  device  in  the  place  of  an  ordinance  of  Christ, 
they  are  thereby  walking  dAsorderhj  as  to  Gospel  truth 
and  Gospel  ordinances,  and  are  not  entitled  to  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Supper."  {Baptist  Church  Directory,  p.  226.) 

The  above  quotation  is  a  fair  specimen  of  a  class  of 
passages,  more  or  less  numerous,  in  the  writings  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  Close  Communion,  in  which  they  virtually  appeal, 
though  not  formally,  to  2  Thess.  iii.  6-15,  as  furnishing 
scriptural  authority  for  refusiiig  to  commune  with  those 
whom  they  are  constrained  to  admit  are  good  Christians, 
members  of  what  they  grant  are  Christian  churches,  but 
who  in  doctrine  or  practice  differ  more  or  less  seriously  from 
them.  Thus,  in  Dr.  Hiscox's  use  of  the  phrase,  walking 
disorderly  consists,  not  in  having  no  church  membership, 
or  not  walking  worthy  of  that  membership ;  not,  even  in 
failing  to  be  immersed,  and  so  rightly  baptized,  but  only 
in  holding  membership  in  a  Pedo-baptist  Church. 

Dr.  Hiscox  says  "  the  conditions  or  prerequisites  to  the 
Communion  are  these:  1.  Conversion;  2.  Baptism,;  3. 
A  godly  life."  (Baptist  Church  Directory,  p.  224).  By  his 
own  showing,  according  to  Baptist  practice,  there  is  a 
fourth,  viz.:  w>alking  orderly,  which  means,  being  a  member 
of  a  Baptist  Church.  The  Doctor  would  not  like  to  state 
it  in  these  words ;  but  we  submit  the  question  to  the 
reader — Is  not  this  a  fair  construction  of  his  words? 

If  the  reader  will  examine  the  whole  passage, — and  we 
have  quoted  it  fully — he  will  see,  that  the  disorderly 
walking  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks  is  a  moral  dehnquen- 
cy ;  whilst  able-bodied,  working  not  at  all,  but  living  upon 
the  labor  of  others,  and  so,  naturally  becoming  a  busybody, 
or  intermeddler  in  other  men's  matters.  This  conduct  the 
Apostle  most  emphatically  condemns,  repeating  the  rule 
before  laid  down,  that  "  if  any  man  would  not  work,  ueither 
should  he  eat."  On  the  word  which  Paul  uses  here  [dis- 
orderly, Gr.  ataktos,  occurring  in  the  aSTew  Testament  only 


P radical   Views.  83 

here  and  iu  1  Tliess.  v.  14,  where  it  is  rendered  "unruli/") 
McKnight  has  this  note, — "ataktos,is  a  military  term, 
and  signifies  those  who  break  their  ranks,  or  desert  their 
post,  so  that  they  cannot  perform  their  duty  as  soldiers, 
especially  in  battle.  It  is  fitly  used  to  denote  those  who 
neglect  the  proper  duty  of  their  office  or  station."  {Mo- 
Xnight  on  1  Thess.  v.  14.) 

Now  it  is  true  that  the  English  phrase  "  walking  dis- 
orderlt/"  may  mean — often  does  mean,  failing  to  come  up 
to  the  Scripture  standard,  respecting  doctrine  and  ordi- 
nances, in  one's  life,  but  the  phrase  "  ataktos penpatountos  " 
(walking  disorderly)  has  not  this  meaning  as  used  by  Paul, 
and  will  not  bear  this  meaning  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
Greek  language.  In  the  use  of  this  phrase,  impliedly  as  a 
quotation  of  Scripture,  as  the  advocates  of  Close  Communion 
frequently  use  it,  and  as  furnishing  Scripture  authority  for 
their  course ;  we  have  a  striking  instance  of  that  jugglery 
with  words,  by  which  the  Scriptures  are  sometimes  made 
to  teach  a  lesson  utterly  at  variance  with  their  whole  spirit 
and  doctrine. 

§  34.  Practical  Views. 

In  considering  such  questions  as  that  of  Communion  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  is  always  well  to  look  at  them  practically, 
as  they  apply  to  the  every-day  occurrences  of  the  Chris- 
tian life  in  the  world.  All  will  agree  that  the  sacraments 
were  given  of  God  to  his  Church  as  precious  means  of 
grace;  and  further,  that  when  rightly  used  they  do 
strengthen  the  faith,  and  increase  the  love  and  develop  the 
whole  Christian  character  of  the  participant.  Thus  it  will 
be  seen  that  members  of  the  church  have  rights  with  re- 
spect to  these  sacraments,  as  well  as  the  Church  to  whose 
administratiofi  Christ  has  committed  them.  The  law  which 
determines  the  members'  right  to  claims  and  the  Churches' 
right  to  grant  or  refuse  them  is  the  law  which  Christ  has 
laid  down.  In  the  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  conditions 
which  Christ  has  prescribed  by  his  example  and  in  his 
word  are  two — and  only  two — viz. :  (1)  Membership  in  his 
visible  Church,  and  (2)  A  credible  profession  of  personal 
faith. 


84  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

Let  the  reader  now  recall  the  case  quoted  from  Dr. 
Mason's  Works  in  §  29.  "Had  the  young  woman  there 
mentioned  a  right  to  a  place  at  the  Lord's  Table  in  Dr. 
Mason's  church?  We  answer  unhesitatingly — Yes.  And 
that  church  did  her  a  cruel  wrong  in  refusing  her  modest 
request.  The  Associate  Reformed  will  admit  that  the 
Dutch  Church  is  as  truly  a  Church  of  Christ  as  their  own: 
— and  further,  that  the  young  woman's  good  standing  in 
her  own  church,  was  all  the  evidence  of  a  credible  profession 
of  faith  on  her  part  they  had  a  right  to  demand.  They 
refused,  without  any  sufficient  reason  therefor,  a  cup  more 
precious  than  "a  cup  of  cold  water,"  to  a  thirsty  disciple, 
and  this  when  the  cup  was  asked  in  the  Master's  name. 

Dr.  Mason  states  the  question  under  examination  thus — 
"  The  sacramental  table  is  spread.  I  approach  and  ask  for 
a  seat.  You  say,  No.  Do  you  dispute  my  Christian 
character  and  standing  ?  Not  in  the  least.  Why,  then 
am  I  refused?  You  do  not  belong  to  our  church.  Your 
church !  What  do  you  mean  by  your  church  ?  Is  it  any- 
thing more  than  a  branch  of  Christ's  church?  Whose 
table  is  this?  Is  it  the  Lord's  table,  or  youi^s  ?  If  yours, 
and  not  his,  I  have  done.  But  if  it  is  the  Lord's,  where 
did  you  acquire  the  power  of  shutting  out  from  its  mercies 
any  one  of  his  people  ?  I  claim  my  seat  under  my  Master's 
grant.  Show  me  your  warrant  for  interfering  with  it. 
Methinks  it  should  require  a  stout  heart  to  encounter  such 
a  challenge :  and  that  the  sturdiest  sectarian  upon  earth, 
not  destitute  of  the  fear  of  God,  should  pause  and  tremble 
before  he  ventured  upon  a  final  repulse.  The  language  of 
such  an  act  is  very  clear  and  daring.  You  have,  indeed, 
Christ's  invitation  to  his  table;  but  you  have  not  mine. 
And  without  mine,  his  shall  not  avail.  Most  fearful! 
Christ  Jesus  says,  do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.  His 
servant  rises  to  obey  his  command;  and  a  feUow-servant, 
acting  in  the  name  of  that  Christ  Jesus,  under  the  oath  of 
God,  interposes  his  veto,  and  says — You  shall  not.  Whose 
soul  does  not  shrink  and  shudder?"  {Mason's  Works,  Vol. 
I,  pp.  20,  21.) 

Turn  we,  now,  to  the  other  case  stated  in  §  29 — viz., 
the  case  of  a  good  old  man  excommunicated  by  his  own 


Practical   Views.  85 

church,  for  communing  with  Presbyterians.  As  already 
said — so  long  as  close  communion  remains  the  law  of  a 
Baptist  Church,  we  do  not  see  how  that  church  could  have 
acted  otherwise  than  they  did  : — but  this  admission  only 
brings  back  the  question  with  the  greater  distinctness — Is 
that  law  the  law  of  God's  house  ?  Is  not  that  law  in  viola- 
tion of  "our  liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus?" 
(Gal.  ii.  4) — =a  liberty  for  which  Paul  contended  so  zealously. 
What  was  this  good  man's  offence?  Was  it  anything  else 
than  refusing  to  have  "  his  liberty  judged  of  another  man's 
conscience  ?  "  (1  Cor,  x.  29.)  And  is  the  guilt  of  such  an 
offence — if  it  be  an  offence — such  that  it  deserves  the  same 
punishment  as  lying  and  stealing  ?  Can  a  law  be  right 
when  it  compels  a  Church  to  treat  one  of  its  oldest  and 
best  members  as  "  a  heathen  man,  and  a  publican  ?  "  (Matt. 
xviii.  17.)  As  we  think  of  that  old  man's  wron^,  for  we 
believe  that  he  suffered  a  grievous  wrong  at  the  hands  of 
his  brethren,  we  feel  like  asking,  in  the  words  of  another 
— "  Who  art  thou,  sinful  flesh,  escaped  by  thy  master's 
grace  from  the  damnation  of  hell,  that  darest — yes — darest, 
to  shut  out  from  the  consolations  of  thy  master's  table,  for 
such  a  reason,  one  whom  thou  acknowledgest  to  be  the 
object  of  his  love?" 


PART    II. 
THE    MASS. 


"  The  word  Mass  has  been  variously  explained,  but  is  almost  uni- 
versally, at  the  present  day,  assumed  to  come  from  the  words  used  in 
dismission  of  the  congregation  :  '  Ite,  Missa  est.'  "  Go,  the  congregation 
is  dismissed."  First;  the  unconverted  hearers  were  dismissed,  and  then 
the  catechumens,  the  baptized  faithful  only  remaining  for  the  Com- 
munion service.  Hence  there  was  in  the  early  Church  a  '  missa  infi- 
delium'  a  '  missa  catechumenorum,'  and  finally,  a  '  missa  fidelium.' 
There  seems  to  have  been  a  different  service  adapted  to  these  several 
classes  of  hearers.  Hence  the  word  '  missa '  came  to  be  used  in  the 
sense  of  the  Greek  word  leitourgia,  or  service.  As  under  the  Old 
Testament  the  offering  of  sacrifices  was  the  main  part  of  the  temple 
service,  so  in  the  Christian  Church,  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
regarded  as  an  expiatory  offering,  it  became  the  middle  point  in  public 
worship,  and  was  called  emphatically  the  service,  or  mass.  Since  the 
Reformation  this  has  become  universal  as  the  designation  of  the  eu- 
charist  as  celebrated  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  {Sodge's  Theology,  vol. 
iii.,  p.  G14.) 


THE    MASS. 


CHAPTER   I. 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

J3o.  Transubstantiation  defined.  g36.  Transubstantiafion  Irreconcilable  with 
the  Testimony  of  the  Senses.  g3V.  Lord  Buckingham  and  the  Priest. 
§33.  The  Testimony  of  the  Senses,  and  not  "reason  and  common  sense." 
g:.9.  The  test  of  Cliemical  Analysis.  §40.  The  Senses  sometimes  deceive  us. 
g41.  Transubstantiation  not  a  Miracle.  §42.  God's  estimate  of  the  Testimony 
of  the  Senses.    Conclusions. 

§  35.   Transubstantiation  defined. 

"  And  because  that  Christ,  our  Redeemer,  declared 
"  that  which  he  offered  under  the  species  of  bread  to  be 
"  truly  his  body,  therefore  has  it  ever  been  a  firm  belief  in 
"  the  "Church  of  God,  and  this  holy  Synod  doth  now  de- 
"  clare  it  anew,  that  by  the  consecration  of  the  bread  and 
"  wine,  a  conversion  is  made  of  the  whole  substance  of  the 
"  bread  into  the  substance  of  the  body  of  Christ  our  Lord, 
"  and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  sub- 
"  stance  of  his  blood,  which  conversion  is,  by  the  holy 
"  Catholic  Church,  suitably  and  properly  called  Transub- 
"  stantiation." — Council  of  Trent,  Session  XIII.  Ch.  IV. 

"  When  in  the  natural  order,  the  form  of  a  being  is 
"  changed,  that  change  may  be  properly  termed  '  a 
"  transformation ; '  in  like  manner,  when,  in  the  sacra- 
"  ment  of  the  Eucharist,  the  whole  substance  of  one  thing 
"  passes  into  the  whole  substance  of  another,  the  change 
"  our  predecessors  in  the  faith  wisely  and  appropriately, 
"  called  '  transubstantiation.'     But  according  to  the  ad- 

91 


92  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

"  monition  so  freg^uently  repeated  by  the  Holy  Fathers, 
"  the  faithful  are  to  be  admonished  against  the  danger 
"  of  gratifying  a  prurient  curiosity,  by  searching  into  the 
"  manner  in  which  this  change  is  effected.  It  mocks  the 
"  powers  of  conception,  nor  can  we  find  any  example  of  it 
"  in  natural  transmutations,  not  even  in  the  wide  range 
"  of  creation.  The  change  itself  is  the  object  not  of  our 
"  comprehension,  but  of  our  humble  faith ;  and  the  man- 
"  ner  of  that  change  forbids  the  temerity  of  a  too  curious 
"  inquiry." — Oatechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  163. 

"  The  Oatholic  Church,  then,  firmly  believes,  and  openly 
"  professes  that  in  this  Sacrament,  the  words  of  consecra- 
"  tion  accomplish  three  things ;  first,  that  the  true  and 
"  real  body  of  Christ,  the  same  that  was  born  of  the 
"  Virgin,  and  is  now  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
"  Father  in  heaven,  is  rendered  present  in  the  Holy 
"  Eucharist ;  secondly,  tjiat  however  repugnant  it  may 
"  appear  to  the  dictate  of  the  senses,  no  substance  of  the 
"  elements  remains  in  the  Sacrament ;  and  thirdly,  a 
"  natural  consequence  from  the  two  preceding,  and  one 
"  which  the  words  of  consecration  also  express,  that  the 
"  accidents  which  present  themselves  to  the  eyes,  or  other 
"  senses,  exist  in  a  wonderful  and  ineffable  manner  with- 
"  out  a  subject.  The  accidents  of  bread  and  wine  we  see ; 
*'  but  they  inhere  in  no  substance,  and  exist  independently 
"  of  any.  The  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  is  so 
"  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  that  they, 
''  altogether,  cease  to  be  the  substance  of  bread  and 
"  wine." — Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  156. 

"  The  ministers  who  offer  this  sacrifice — i.  e.,  the  sacri- 
"  fice  of  the  Mass — consecrate  the  holy  mysteries,  not  in 
"  their  own,  but  in  the  person  of  Christ,  This  the  words 
"  of  consecration  declare.  The  priest  does  not  say,  "  This  - 
"  is  the  body  of  Christ,"  but,  "  This  is  my  body ;  "  and 
"  thus  invested  with  the  character  of  Christ,  he  changes  the 
"  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the  substance  of  his 
"  real  body  and  blood."  Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  p.  175. 

"Priests  .and  bishops  .  .  .  are  the  representatives  of 
"  God  upon  earth. . ,  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  conceive  - 


Transuhstantiaiion  Defined.  93 

"  a  more  exalted  dignity,  or  functions  more  sacred.  Just- 
"  ly,  therefore,  are  they  called  not  only  angels,  (Mai.  ii.  7,) 
''  but  gods,  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6,)  holding,  as  they  do,  the  place 
"  and  power  and  authority  of  God  on  earth.  But  the 
"  priesthood,  at  all  times  ah  elevated  -office,  transcends,  in 
"  the  new  law,  all  others  in  dignity.  The  power  of  conse- 
"  crating  and  offering  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
"and  of  remitting  sin,  with  which  the  priesthood  of  the 
"  new  law  is  invested,  is  such  as  cannot  be  comprehended 
"  by  the  human  mind,  still  less  is  it  equalled  by,  or  as- 
"  similated  to,  anything  on  earth."  Catechism  of  the 
Coimcil  of  Trent,  p.  212.  \ 

From  the  extracts  given  abovejfrom  "  The  Canons  and 
Decrees  of  the  Council  of  TrenZ^^nd  "  The  Catechism"  of 
that  Council,  it  will  be  seen — 

1.  That  transubstantiation  is  not  a  simple  change  or 
transformation  of  one  thing  into  another  ; — such,  for  ex- 
ample, as  that  effected  by  our  Lord,  when  he  changed 
water  into  wine,  at  Cana,  in  Galilee.  In  that  instance, 
the  change  affected  the  "accidents  "  as  well  as  "the  sub- 
stance ;  "  the  wine  produced  had  the  color,  and  odor,  and 
taste  of  wine ;  the  color  and  odor  and  taste  of  the  water 
had  disappeared  along  with  its  substance.  The  change 
was  a  complete  change.  One  thing  had  taken  the  place 
of  the  other.  In  contrast  with  this,  in  the  case  of  the  tran- 
substantiated wine  of  the  Eucharist,  the  accidents, — the 
color  and  odor  and  taste  of  wine  remain,  "  but  they  in- 
here in  no  substance,  and  exist  independently  of  any;" 
i.  e.,  they  are  the  color  and  odor  and  taste  of — nothing. 
Whilst  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  has  been  produced,  is 
naked  substance  without  sensible  accidents  ;  i.  e»,  it  has 
no  color  nor  odor  nor  taste.  The  Catechism  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  teaches  truly,  that  transubstantiation  "  mocks 
the  power  of  conception,  nor  can  we  find  any  example  of 
it  in  natural  transmutations,  not  even  in  the  wide  range 
of  creation." 

2.  That  transubstantiation  is  accomplished  by  the 
priest,  through  a  mysterious  power  conferred  upon  him  in 
his  ordination,  in  consequence  of  which  he  is  enabled  to 
act  "  in  the  person  of  Christ,  .  .  .  holding  the  place  and 


94  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

power  and  authority  of  God  on  earth;  "  a  power  "  such  as 
cannot  be  comprehended  by  the  human  mind,  still  less 
equalled  by,  or  assimilated  to  anything  on  earth." 

§  36.   Transuhstantiation  irreconcilable  with  the  testimony 
of  the  senses. 

That  the  fact  of  transuhstantiation,  if  it  be  a  fact,  is 
irreconcilable  with  the  testimony  of  our  senses,  is  freely 
admitted  by  P^-omish  writers. 

In  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  we  read : — 
"  The  pastor,  aware  of  the  awful  denunciation  of  the  Apcs- 
"  tie  against  those  who  discern  not  the  body  of  the  Lord, 
- "  (1  Cor.  xi.  29)  will,  first  of  all,  impress  on  the  minds  of 
"  the  faithful,  the  necessity  of  detaching,  as  much  as  pos- 
"  sible,  their  minds  and  understandings  from  the  domin- 
"  ion  of  the  senses ;  for  were  they,  with  regard  to  this 
"  sublime  mystery,  to  constitute  the  senses  the  only  tri- 
"  bunal  to  which  they  are  to  appeal,  the  awful  conse- 
"  quence  must  be,  their  precipitation  into  the  extreme  of 
"  impiety.  Consulting  the  sight,  the  touch,  the  smell,  the 
"  taste,  and  finding  nothing  but  the  appearances  of  bread 
"  and  wine,  the  senses  must  naturally  lead  them  to  think, 
"  that  this  sacrament  contains  nothing  more  than  bread 
"  and  wine.  Their  minds,  therefore,  are  as  much  as  possi- 
"  ble  to  be  withdrawn  from  subjection  to  the  senses,  and 
"  excited  to  the  contemplation  of  the  stupendous  power  of 
"  God  "  (p.  156.) 

In  Bishop  Verot's  "  Short  Catechism,  on  the  basis 
adopted  by  the  First  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,"  we 
read — ' 

"  Q.  Is  it  not  bread  and  wine  that  are  first  put  upon 
"  the  altar,  for  the  celebration  of  Mass  ? 

"  A.  Yes ;  it  is  always  bread  and  wine  till  the  priest 
"  pronounces  the  words  of  Consecration  during  the  Mass. 

"  Q.  What  happens  by  these  words  ? 

"  A.  The  bread  is  changed  into  the  body  of  Jesus 
"  Christ,  and  the  wine  into  his  blood. 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  this  firmly  ? 

"  A.  Yes ;  and  as  firmly  as  if  I  saw  it  with  my  eyes, 
"because  Jesus  Christ  has  said  it."  {p.  15.) 


Lord  Backingham  and  the  Priest.  95 

The  testimony  of  the  bodily  senses,  if  the  man  be  sane 
and  in  health,  respecting  matters  which  come  properly 
within  the  domain  of  the  senses,  is  universally  received  as 
decisive  in  all  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life;  and  if  that 
testimony  be  clear  and  distinct,  a  sworn  jury  will  take  a 
man's  life  upon  its  trustworthiness.  Dr.  C.  Hodge  re- 
marks, truly,—"  Disbelief  of  our  senses,  involves  disbelief 
in  him  who  is  the  author  of  our  nature,  and  of  the  laws 
which  are  impressed  upon  it.  There  is  no  more  complete 
and  destructive  infidelity  than  the  want  of  faith  in  the 
veracity  of  consciousness,  whether  it  be  the  consciousness 
of  our  sense  perceptions,  or  of  the  truths  involved  in  our 
rational,  moral,  or  religious  nature."  [Hodge's  Theology, 
vol.  Hi.  p.  684.) 


§  37.  Lord  Buckingham  and  the  Priest. 

How  irreconcilable  transubstantiation  is  with  the  testi- 
mony of  the  senses,  is  illustrated  in  the  following  story 
told  of  the  celebrated  Lord  Buckingham  :  "  On  a  certain 
occasion  Lord  Buckingham  was  confined  to  his  couch ; 
and  as  the  priests  were  very  anxious  to  make  a  convert  of 
him,  he  proposed  to  amuse  himself  at  their  expense.  He 
therefore  yielded  to  the  entreaties  of  those  around  him, 
and  consented  to  receive  a  confessor.  This  man  proceeded 
to  address  the  witty  noble  on  the  subject  of  repentance, 
and  death,  and  the  sacraments.  But  he  disregarded  all 
that  was  said  in  the  most  studied  manner ;  affecting  a  sort 
of  wandering  or  imbecility  of  mind.  Holding  a  cork  in 
his  hand,  he  spoke  of  it  as  his  favorite  horse,  patting  its 
sides  and  stroking  its  mane,  till  the  confessor,  pitying  the 
state  of  his  mind,  spoke  to  him  on  the  subject.  He 
assured  him  that  it  was  not  his  horse,  but  only  a  cork. 
The  other  insisted  that  it  was  indeed  his  horse,  and  begged 
him  to  observe  its  noble  neck,  its  beautiful  head,  its  flow- 
ing mane,  its  finely-formed  limbs,  its  splendid  action ! 
Still  the  good  chaplain  persevered,  and  argued  with  him, 
to  the  effect  that  if  he  would  only  look  at  it,  he  might  see 
that  it  was  not  like  a  horse,  but  only  a  cork, — that  if  he 
would  only  feel  it,  he  might  perceive  that  it  was  not  a 


'96  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

horse,  but  only  a  cork, — that  if  he  would  smell  it,  he 
might  smell  that  it  was  not  a  horse,  but  only  a  cork, — 
that  if  he  would  taste  it  he  might  at  once  perceive  that  it 
did  not  taste  like  a  horse,  but  only  a  cork.  The  other 
seemed  struck  by  this  process  of  argument,  and  gave  way, 
confessing  that  he  might  have  been  deceived  by  some  one 
who  had  told  him  that  it  was  his  horse,  and  whom  he  had 
hastily  believed  without  due  consideration.  He  now  was 
convinced  that  it  was  only  a  cork.  The  confessor  having 
succeeded  thus  far,  continued  his  religious  exhortations, 
and  in  the  end,  proposed  administering  to  him  the  Holy 
Sacrament,  to  which  he  at  once  assented.  Everything 
was  soon  arranged ;  and  the  confessor  gave  him  the  con- 
secrated host.  He  asked  him  what  it  was  ?  The  confessor 
answered  it  was  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, — it  was  the  body 
of  God.  This,  exclaimed  the  merry  wit,  in  affected  aston- 
ishment, this  Jesus  Christ, — this  the  body  of  God !  It  is 
only  a  little  wafer  of  flour  and  water !  The  good  chaplain 
was  shocked,  and  assured  him  that  it  was  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord.  The  other  then  proceeded  to  argue 
with  him,  and  said,  he  must  be  under  some  mental  hal- 
lucination ;  for  if  he  would  look  at  it  he  might  see  it  was 
not  like  Jesus  Christ,  but  only  a  wafer, — that  if  he  would 
taste  it,  he  would  perceive  that  it  was  not  like  Jesus 
Christ,  but  only  a  little  wafer, — that  if  he  would  only 
smell  it,  he  would  at  once  find  that  it  was  not  like  Jesus 
Christ,  but  was  only  a  little  piece  of  flour  and  water. 
And  he  assured  the  confessor  that  there  could  be  no  doubt 
that  a  man  must  be  out  of  his  senses  who  believed  a  thing 
so  contrary  to  his  senses.  The  confessor  could  only  with- 
draw in  despair."  {Evenings  with  the  Bomanists,  pp. 
345,  6.) 


§38.   The  testimony  of  the  senses,  and  not  "  reason  and 
common  sensed 

Eomish  writers  have  sought  to  break  the  force  of  this 
argument  against  transubstantiation  by  confounding  the 
testimony  of  the  senses  with  reason  and  common  sense. 
Thus,  Cardinal  Wiseman  writes, — "  It  is  easy  to  talk  of 


Tlic  Tcdiniony  of  the  Senses.  97 

reason  and  common  sense,  and  tlie  laws  which  regulato 
bodies ;  but  when  we  come  to  introduce  these  matters  into 
theology,  and  pretend  to  decide  where  they  clash  with  a 
mystery,  and  where  a  mystery  rides  triumphant  over 
them,  we  not  only  bring  profane  scales  into  the  sanctuary, 
but  we  are  mixing  a  dangerous  ingredient  with  our  faith," 
(Lectures  on  the  Eiicliarist,  ji.  241.)  And  Archbishop 
Gibbons  writes, — "  Is  the  Almighty  not  permitted  to  do 
anything  except  what  we  can  sanction  by  our  reason  ? 
Is  a  thing  to  be  declared  impossible,  because  we  cannot 
see  its  possibility  ?  ...  Is  not  the  Scripture  full  of  in- 
comprehensible mysteries?  Do  you  not  believe  in  the 
Trinity,  a  mystery  not  only  above,  but  apparently  con- 
trary to  reason  ?  Do  you  not  admit  the  Incarnation, — 
that  the  helpless  infant  in  Bethlehem  was  God  ?  I  under- 
stand why  Rationalists,  who  admit  nothing  above  their 
reason,  reject  the  Eeal  Presence;  but  that  Bible  Chris- 
tians should  reject  it,  is  to  me  incomprehensible."  [The 
Faith  of  our  Fathers,  pp.  333,  4.) 

Let  the  reader  notice  that  the  Protestant  argument 
against  transubstantiation  is, — not  that  it  is  contrary  to 
reason  and  common  sense,  but  that  it  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  explicit  testimony  of  our  senses,  and  that  in  a 
matter  which  comes  properly  within  the  domain  of  the 
senses.  The  mystery  of  the  Trinity  lies  entirely  without 
the  domain  of  the  bodily  senses.  They  have  nothing  to 
say  respecting  its  truth  or  its  falsehood.  With  respect  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  that  "  the  Word  was 
made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,"  in  so  far  as  that  doctrine 
comes  properly  within  the  domain  of  the  bodily  senses, 
their  testimony  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  that  doctrine. 
Men  saw  and  handled  and  heard  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 
just  as  distinctly  as  they  see  and  handle  and  hear  any 
other  man; — and  even  as  to  his  Godhead,  the  bodily  senses 
testified,  indirectly,  to  its  presence,  as  John  writes — "  We 
beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father."  (Jno.  i.  14.) 

It  is  not  because  of  tlie  mystery  of  the  doctrine,  nor 
because  we  would  limit  the  power  of  God  by  human  rea- 
son, that  we  object  to  transubstantiation;  but  because  it 
5 


98  The,  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

is  irreconcilable  with  the  testimony  of  our  bodily  senses ; 
and  this  testimony  is  explicit, — it  is  the  testimony  of  our 
senses  in  broad  day-light,  and  when  the  organs  of  sense 
are  in  a  healthy  condition, —  it  is  the  concurrent  testimony 
of  the  senses  of  all  men  alike,  Romanists  as  well  as  Pro- 
testants,— it  is  the  testimony  of  men  of  all  countries  and 
through  all  the  ages  in  which  Romish  Priests,  have  been 
consecrating  the  wafer, — and  all  this,  without  one  dis- 
sentient voice ;  for  never  has  there  been  found  a  sane 
Romanist,  even  in  the  darkest  period  of  the  dark  ages, 
who  pretended  that  the  wafer  looked,  or  smelt,  or  felt,  or 
tasted  to  him  like  anything  else  than  bread. 


§  39.   The  Test  of  Chemical  Analysis. 

If  in  the  examination  of  any  body,  we  are  led,  for  any 
reason,  to  distrust  the  competency  of  our  senses  to  decide 
upon  its  nature,  there  are  other  means  to  which  men  are 
accustomed  to  turn,  where  science  is  brought  in  to  aid  the 
senses.  For  example, — I  have  a  powder  which  has  the 
color,  odor,  taste  and  hardness  of  poisonous  white  arsenic, 
and  I  have  reason  to  suspect  that  this  white  powder  has 
been  used  in  effecting  the  death  of  some  man.  In  a  case 
like  this,  when  the  life  of  a  fellow-man  is  in  question; 
whilst  I  do  not  distrust  the  direct  testimony  of  my  senses, 
— so  far  as  it  goes — yet  I  want  some  further  proof  that  my 
judgment  founded  upon  that  testimony  is  a  correct  one, 
before  I  am  willing  to  act  in  a  case  so  important  as  the 
one  before  me.  In  such  circumstances,  I  take  the  white 
powder  to  a  chemist,  that  he  may  examine  it  with  the  aid 
of  all  the  means  that  science  furnishes : — and  when  I  have 
his  decision,  if  I  have  confidence  in  his  competency  as  a 
chemist,  I  receive  that  decision  as  finally  settling  the 
matter ;  as  a  decision  from  which  there  ought  to  be  no 
appeal. 

Let  us  adopt  this  course  in  the  case  before  us ;  for  tliis 
is  just  one  of  those  cases  which  comes  properly  within  the 
range  of  the  senses,  and  of  the  science  of  the  analytic 
chemist,  and  where  such  a  course  seems  altogether  proper. 
I  take  the  wafer,  after  consecration,  and  the  clear  and  dis- 


The  Test  of  Chemical  Analysis.  99 

tlnct  testimony  of  my  senses, — ^  testimony  in  which  all 
the  senses  concur — is,  that  the  wafer  is  bread.  The  E-oman- 
ist  says — no — it  is  flesh — "  the  true  and  real  body  of 
Christ,  the  same  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin."  If  I  reply, 
— it  has  the  color,  and  odor,  and  taste,  and  feeling  of  bread, — 
he  answers — the  color,  and  odor,  and  taste,  and  feeling 
are  those  of  bread,  I  acknowledge ;  but  this  is  one  of  the 
cases  in  which,  if  we  "  constitute  the  senses  the  only  tri- 
bunal to  which  we  are  to  appeal,  the  awful  consequence 
must  bo,  our  precipitation  into  the  extreme  of  impiety." 
According  to  this  statement,  the  matter  at  issue  here,  is 
not  the  mortal  life  of  some  fellow-man,  but  the  everlasting 
life  of  my  own  soul.  In  such  a  case,  while  I  may  not  dis- 
credit the  testimony  of  my  senses,  yet,  I  naturally  desire 
to  have  that  testimony  confirmed  or  set  aside,  by  more 
unquestionable  proof.  I  therefore  take  the  wafer  to  a 
competent  chemist  for  examination.  In  due  time,  I  receive 
his  report;  and  it  is  in  substance  as  follows — 

Prelirainary  Examination. 

(1)  Determined  its  Specific  Gravity.  That  of  bread  and 
not  flesh. 

(2)  Triturated  it  in  a  mortar.  It  was  brittle  and  easily 
reduced  to  powder,  like  bread : — not  tough,  flattening  out 
under  the  pestle,  like  flesh. 

(3)  Exposed  to  a  spirit-lamp,  it  burned  with  the  flame 
and  odor  of  bread,  and  not  those  of  flesh. 

Analysis. 

(1)  The  result  of  a  careful  proximate  analysis  was,  that 
the  wafer  was  resolved  into  starch  and  vegetable  gluten, 
as  bread  would  have  been : — and  not  into  fibrine,  and 
albumen,  and  fat,  as  flesh  would  have  been. 

(2)  The  result  of  a  careful  ultimate  analysis  was,  that 
the  wafer  was  resolved  into  carbon,  oxygen  and  hydrogen, 
with  a  little  nitrogen,  thus  exhibiting  the  exact  composi- 
tion of  bread,  and  not  that  of  flesh. 

(3)  The  proportions  in  which  these  several  elements  ex- 
isted in  the  wafer,  indicate  the  exact  atomic  constitution 
of  bread,  and  not  flesh. 


100  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Swpjper. 

Conclusion.  The  wafer  submitted  to  examination  is 
bread,  and  not  flesh. 

Signed  A B Analytic  Chemist, 

No  Eomish  Priest  will  venture  to  call  in  question  the 
correctness  of  the  statement  given  above,  of  the  results  of 
a  chemical  analysis  of  a  consecrated  wafer : — but  he  will 
discredit  this  proof  that  the  wafer  is  bread  and  not  flesh 
by  saying,  that  all  the  peculiarities  upon  which  the  chemist 
bases  his  judgment,  are,  like  color,  odor,  and  taste,  the  ac- 
cidents of  matter  : — and  these  accidents,  according  to  his 
doctrine  as  well  as  mine,  are  the  accidents  of  bread. 

Let  the  reader  carefully  notice  how  far  this  Eomish  doc- 
trine of  "  accidents  "  reaches;  and  if  we  mistake  not,  he  will 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  Rome  teaches  some  strange  phi- 
losophy as  well  as  strange  religion.  In  the  category  of  acci- 
dents we  must  reckon,  not  only  color,  odor,  feeling  and 
taste,  the  peculiarities  directly  cognizable  by  the  senses ; 
but  specific  gravity,  mechanical  constitution,  chemical  re- 
lations to  heat  and  the  atmosphere,  chemical  constitution 
both  proximate  and  ultimate,  and  even  atomic  constitu- 
tion:— in  fine, — in  the  category  of  accidents  we  must 
include  everything  by  means  of  which  we  are  accustomed 
to  distinguish  one  material  from  another. 

If  this  be  so,  the  conclusion  seems  inevitable, — either, 
(1)  There  is  but  one  kind  of  material  substance  after  all, — 
and  then  Transubstantiation,  which  is  the  change  of  one 
substance  into  another,  is  an  impossibility — or,  (2)  If  there 
are  diflerent  kinds  of  material  substance,  the  fact  is  un- 
knowable by  man;  and  so,  Transubstantiation  is  an  un- 
knowable reality.  Perhaps,  it  was  this  latter  conclusion 
the  authors  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  had  in 
mind  when  they  wrote  respecting  Transubstantiation — "  It 
mocks  the  powers  of  conception,  nor  can  we  find  any  ex- 
ample of  it  in  natural  transmutations,  not  even  in  the  wide 
range  of  creation."  If  we  admitted  the  Romanist's  repre- 
sentation of  the  nature  of  the  consecrated  wafer,  we  could 
freely  endorse  the  above  quoted  statement  respecting  it : — 
Among  all  the  creations  of  God,  there  is  nothing  like  it 


The  Senses  corndimes  Deceive  us.  101 

"  in  lioavon  above,  or  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  in  the  waters 
"  under  the  earth." 

§  40.    The  Senses  sometimes  deceive  lis. 

The  objection  to  Transubstantiation  on  the  ground  of  the 
testimony  of  the  senses  is  sometimes  met,  by  referring  to 
the  fact  that  in  certain  cirqumstances,  and  in  an  abnormal 
condition,  the  bodily  senses  do  deceive  us,  and  hence  in- 
ferring, most  illogically,  that  in  ordinary  circumstances 
and  in  a  healthy  condition,  they  are  not  to  be  trusted. 

Dr.  Milner  writes, — "  '  If  we  cannot  believe  our  senses, 
the  bishop  says,  wo  can  believe  nothing.'  This  was  a 
good  popular  topic  for  archbishop  Tillotson,  from  vfliom  it 
was  borrowed,  to  flourish  upon  in  the  pulpit,  but  will  UDt 
stand  the  test  of  Christian  theology.  It  will  undermine 
the  incarnation  itself.  With  equal  reason  the  Jews  said  of 
Christ,  '  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son  ?  Is  not  his 
mother  called  Mary?'  (Matt.  xiii.  55.)  Hence  they 
concluded  that  he  was  not  what  he  proclaimed  him- 
self to  be,  the  Son  of  God.  In  like  maimer  Joshua 
thought  he  saw  a  man;  (Joshua  v.  13.)  And  Jacob  that 
he  touched  one;  (Genesis  xxxii.  24.)  And  Abraham,  that 
he  eat  wdth  three  men ;  (Gen.  xviii.),  when  in  all  these  in- 
stances there  were  no  real  men,  but  unbodied  spirits,  pre- 
sent; the  diflferent  senses  of  those  patriarchs  misleading 
them.  Again,  were  not  the  eyes  of  the  disciples,  going  to 
Emmaus,  held  so  that  they  should  not  know  Jesus  ?  (Luke 
xxiv.  16.)  Did  not  the  same  thing  happen  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene and  the  apostles  ?  (Jno.  xx.  15.)  But  independently 
of  Scripture,  philosophy  and  experience  show  that  there  is 
no  essential  connection  between  our  sensations  and  the 
objects  which  occasion  them,  and  that,  in  fact,  each  of  our 
senses  frequently  deceives  us.  How  unreasonable  then  is 
it,  as  well  as  impious,  to  oppose  their  fallible  testimony  to 
God's  infallible  word."    (The  End  of  Controversy,  p.  236.) 

Let  us  examine,  briefly,  these  cases  cited  by  Dr.  Milnur: 
(1)  "The  Jews  said.  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son?  Is 
not  his  mother  called  Mary  ?"  He  was  the  carpenter's 
son,  according  to  Jewish  law.  His  mother  was  called  Mary. 
Their  senses  did  not  deceive  them  in  this  matter.     Our 


102  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Siqipzr. 

Lord's  divinity  was  not  directly  cognizable  by  the  senses ; 
and  with  their  rejection  of  His  claim  to  divinity  their 
bodily  senses  had  nothing  to  do. 

(2)  In  the  case  of  the  three  patriarchs. — Where  did  Dr. 
Milner  learn  that  the  man  Joshua  saw,  and  the  one  Jacob 
wrestled  with,  and  the  three  Abraham  eat  with  Avere  "  but 
unbodied  spirits  ?"  Certainly  not  from  Scripture.  The 
Scriptures  say, — not,  that  Joshua  "  thought  he  saw  a 
man,"  but  "  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  looked,  and  behold 
there  stood  a  man  over  against  him  with  his  sword  drawii 
in  his  hand."  According  to  the  common  opinion  of  the 
early  Christian  Fathers,  this  person  was  God  the  Son, 
assuming  temporarily  a  human  body,  just  as  he  afterward 
did  permanently,  in  his  incarnation.  If  Jacob  only  thought 
that  he  touched  the  man  with  whom  he  wrestled;  he 
must  have  more  than  thought  that  the  man  touched  him 
on  the  thigh,  as  his  thigh  was  out  of  joint,  and  his  thigh- 
sinew  shrank,  so  that  he  halted  upon  his  thigh  afterwards. 
If  Abraham  only  thought  ho  eat  with  the  three  men,  he 
must  have  more  than  thought  that  they  eat  with  him;  for 
the  inspired  record  is,  "  He  took  butter,  and  milk,  and  the 
calf  which  he  had  dressed,  and  set  it  before  them;  and  he 
stood  by  them  under  the  tree,  and  they  did  eat."  (Gen. 
xviii.  8.)  In  all  these  instances,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
burning  bush,  burning  but  not  consumed,  God  made  his 
presence  known  to  men  through  their  bodily  senses ;  and 
their  senses  testified  to  the  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 

(3)  In  the  case  of  the  disciples  going  to  Emmaus,  the 
Scriptures  say — ''  Their  eyes  were  holden  that  they  should 
not  knov)  him."  They  saw  him,  he  spake  to  them  and 
they  heard  him, — their  senses  bore  true  testimony  in  both 
these  particulars.  All  that  the  Scriptures  say  is  that  they 
did  not  recognize  him ;  and  that  this  failure  to  recognize 
him  was  effected  by  the  miraculous  exercise  of  divine 
power.  As  to  the  last  case  cited ;  is  it  any  impeachment 
of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  bodily  senses,  that  the  tear- 
dimmed  eyes  of  Mary  Magdalene  did  not  recognize  her 
Lord,  when  he  first  appeared  to  her  as  she  sat  weeping 
at  his  empty  sepulchre  ? 

Suppose  the  case  of  a  trial  for  murder ;  and  that  an 


Transuhstantiation  not  a  Miracle.  103 

iinimpoacliable  witness  comes  forward,  and  testifies — I 
heard  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  several  days  before  the  mur- 
der occurred,  threaten  the  murdered  man's  Hfe ;  and  then, 
on  such  a  day  and  at  such  a  place  I  saw  him  stab  the 
man.  I  saw  the  man  fall  under  the  blow,  and  after  suffer- 
ing for  a  time,  I  saw  him  carried  out  a  corpse.  If  in  such 
circumstances,  the  prisoner's  lawyer  should  plead  in 
defense,  that  the  senses  sometimes  deceive  us ;  and  then 
should  cite  a  number  of  unquestionable  instances  in 
which  this  was  true, — would  Dr.  Milner  consider  such  a 
plea  as  anything  better  than  solemn  trilling  with  the  truth  ? 
Would  he  entertain  the  idea  for  a  moment  of  acquitting 
the  prisoner  on  such  ground  as  this? 

§  41.   Transuhstantiation  not  a  Miracle. 

Bomish  writers  often  speak  of  Transuhstantiation  as  a 
miracle,  analogous  to  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  therefore  as  credible  as  they. 

Dr.  Milner  writes, — "  I  shall  finish  this  letter  with  re- 
marking, that,  as  transuhstantiation,  according  to  Bishop 
Cosin,  was  the  first  of  Christ's  miracles  in  changing  water 
into  wine ;  so  it  may  be  said  to  be  his  last,  during  his 
mortal  course,  by  changing  bread  and  wine  into  his  sacred 
body  and  blood."  {The  End  of  Controversy,  p.  226): — 
And  Cardinal  Wiseman,  when  discussing  the  spirit  and 
temper  in  which  the  apostles  must  have  listened  to  the 
words  of  institution,  as  they  fell  from  the  lips  of  our  Lord, 
writes; — "But  there  were  some  miracles  still  more  calcu- 
lated to  make  them  very  timid  in  drawing  the  line  between 
absolute  impossibility  to  their  Lord,  and  power  over  the 
received  laws  of  nature.  For  instance,  gravitation  is  one 
of  the  properties  universally  attributed  to  bodies,  and  is 
closely  aUied,  in  reality  and  in  conception  with  our  notion 
of  extension.  Yet  the  apostles  had  seen  the  body  of  Jesus, 
for  a  time,  deprived  of  this  property,  and  able  .to  walk, 
without  sinking,  on  the  surface  of  the  waters.  They  had 
seen  him,  in  another  instance,  actually  change  one  sub- 
stance into  another.  For  at  the  marriage-feast  at  Cana, 
he  had  completely  transmuted,  or,  if  you  please,  transub- 


104  The  Doctrine  of  the  LorcCs  Supper. 

stantiated  water  into  wine.  It  would  require  a  very  fine 
edge  of  intellect  to  distinguish  in  mind  between  the  pos- 
sibility of  making  water  become  wine,  and  the  impos- 
sibility of  making  wine  become  blood."  {Lectures  on  the 
Eucharist,  pp.  232,  3.) 

Is  transubstantiation  a  mere  "  change  or  transmuting" 
of  one  thing  into  another,  such  as  that  our  Lord  effected 
when  he  changed  water  into  wine  at  Cana  ?  By  no  means. 
(See  §  35.)  When  our  Lord  changed  water  into  wine,  it 
was  not  the  ''  substance  "  alone,  as  distinct  from  the  "  acci- 
dents," which  was  changed ;  but  the  whole  thing,  "  sub- 
stance and  accidents."  After  the  change  was  wrought, 
the  liquid  did  not  possess  the  color,  and  odor,  and  taste  of 
water,  but  the  color,  and  odor,  and  taste  of  wine ;  and  of 
better  wine  than  the  company  had  been  drinking  before, 
as  is  evident  from  the  words  of  the  "  governor  of  the  feast, — 
thou  hast  kept  the  good  wine  until  now."  (Jno.  ii.  10.) 
Had  the  change  been  a  transubstantiation, — had  the  win3 
miraculously  produced  possessed  the  color,  and  odor,  and 
taste  of  water,  the  miracle  would  have  afforded  very  little 
satisfaction  to  the  guests. 

And  this  leads  us  to  notice  a  principal  characteristic  of 
the  miracles  of  our  Lord : — They  were  all  signs  (semia) 
as  well  as  miracles  and  wonderful  works.  Semeion  is  the 
word  most  frequently  used  by  the  sacred  writers  when 
speaking  of  this  class  of  our  Lord's  works.  In  our  Eng- 
lish Bible  this  word  is  often  translated  literally — sign,  but 
not  unfrequently  translated  miracle.  In  the  very  passage 
which  records  the  change  of  the  water  into  wine  at  Cana, 
"  This  beginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus "  at  Cana,  the 
word  in  the  original,  rendered  miracle,  is  semion.  (Jno. 
ii.  11.) 

"  It  will  perhaps  be  found  " — writes  Bishop  Fitzgerald 
— "  that  the  habitual  use  of  the  term  miracle  has  tended 
to  fix  attention  too  much  upon  the  physical  strangeness  of 
the  facts  thus  described,  and  to  divert  attention  from  what 
may  be  called  their  signality.  In  reality,  the  practical 
importance  of  the  strangeness  of  miraculous  facts  consists 
in  this,  that  it  is  one  of  the  circumstances  which,  taken 
together,  make  it  reasonable  to  understand  the  phenomenon 


Transuhstantiation  not  a  Miracle.  105 

as  a  mark,  seal,  or  attestation  of  the  divine  sanction  to 
something  else."  [Smith's  Dictionanj,  Art.  Miradc.) 

The  Jews,  and  our  Lord  himself,  constantly  appeal  to 
miracles,  in  their  character  of  signs  (semeia)  as  the  proper 
attestation  of  his  divine  mission.  "  Then  said  they — the 
Jews — therefore  unto  him.  What  sign  shewest  thou  then, 
that  we  may  see  and  believe  thee?  "  (Jno,  vi.  30.) — "Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  them ;  Go  show  John  again  those 
things  which  ye  do  hear  and  see:  The  blind  receive  their 
sight,  and  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the 
deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the 
gospel  preached  to  them."  (Matt.  xi.  4,  5.) 

Leslie,  in  his  "Short  Method  with  the  Deists,"  (p.  4,) 
lays  down  the  following  marks,  among  others,  as  charac- 
teristic of  our  Lord's  miracles,  and  distinguishing  them 
from  those  "  reported  of  Mahomet  and  the  heathen  deities  : 
— (1)  That  the  fact  was  such  as  man's  outward  senses 
could  judge  of;  and  (2)  That  they  were  performed  pub- 
hcly,  in  the  presence  of  witnesses."  And  he  writes — 
"  These  marks  make  it  impossible  for  any  false  fact  to  be 
imposed  upon  men  at  the  time  when  it  was  said  to  be  done, 
because  every  man's  senses  would  contradict  it." 

Not  only,  then,  from  the  word  which  the  sacred  writers 
most  frequently  use  to  designate  the  miracles  of  Christ, 
viz.,  the  word  scmion,  a  sign,  a  token,  a  seal ;  but  from 
our  Lord's  appeal  to  them  as  the  divine  attestation  of  .his 
mission,  we  conclude  that  it  is  essential  to  them  that  the 
change  wrought  should  be  obvious  to  the  senses.  Had 
our  Lord  transubstantiated  the  water  into  wine  at  Cana, 
so  that  to  the  guests  that  drank  it,  it  still  looked  like 
water,  it  smelt  like  water,  it  tasted  like  water,  would  it 
have  been  any  sign  to  them  ?  Or  could  the  record  have 
been  made — "This  beginning  of  miracles  (semeia)  did 
Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  7nanifested  forth  his  glory ; 
and  his  disciples  believed  in  him."  (Jno.  ii.  11.)  Our 
Lord's  miracles  are  all,  evidently,  intended  to  furnish  the 
foundation  for  a  rational  faith  through  an  appeal  to  the 
senses,  whilst  transuhstantiation,  in  contrast  with  this, 
appeals  at  once  to  man's  faith,  or,  rather,  credulity,  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  his  senses.  Whilst 
5* 


106  The  DoGtrine  of  the  Lords  Sujjper. 

then,  in  a  loose  and  popular  sense  of  the  word  miracle, — 
a  sense  in  which  it  is  used  as  equivalent  to  a  wonderl'ul 
work — transubstantiation  may  be  called  a  miracle;  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
luiiformly  used  in  Scripture,  and  the  only  sense  in  which 
it  ought  to  be  used  in  theological  controversy,  it  is  not  a 
miracle,  and  that  name  should  never  be  given  it. 


§  42.  God's  Estimate  of  the  Testimony  of  the  Senses. 

God  attested  the  divine  character  and  mission  of  Christ 
Jesus  by  means  of  evidence  which  appealed  directly  to 
man's  bodily  senses.  Hence  John  writes,  near  the  close 
of  his  gospel, — "  And  many  other  signs  {semeia)  truly  did 
Jesus  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written 
in  this  book  :  but  these  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believ- 
ing ye  might  have  life  through  his  name."  (Jno.  xx.  30,31.) 
And  he  opens  his  first  Epistle  with  the  declaration, — 
"  That  which  was  from  the  beginning,  which  we  have 
heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have 
looked  upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  Word  of 
life ;  (For  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it, 
and  bear  witness,  and  shew  unto  you  that  eternal  life, 
which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us ; ) 
that  which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you, 
that  ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us ;  and  truly  our 
fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ."  (1  John  i.  1-3.)  In  his  words — "which  we  have 
heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have 
looked  upon,  {"  which  we  have  diligently  looked  upon," 
Douay  Bible)  and  our  hands  have  handled  of  the  Word 
of  life,"  the  Apostle  cites  this  concurrent  testimony  of  the 
different  bodily  senses,  as  affording  the  clearest  possible 
proof  of  the  facts  to  which  they  bear  testimony, — that 
upon  which  his  own  faith  rested, — that  upon  which  he 
would  have  Christians  everywhere  to  rest  their  faith. 
When  "  John  sent  two  of  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  him ; 
Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another  ? 
Jesus  answered  and  said,  Go  show  John  again  those  things 


Conclusions.  107 

which  ye  do  hear  and  see :  The  blind  receive  their  sight, 
and  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf 
hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel 
preached  unto  them."  (Matt.  xi.  2-5.)  Thus  declaring  his 
miracles  {semcia),  in  all  of  which  the  appeal  was  to  the 
bodily  senses,  to  be  God's  attestation  of  his  divine  char- 
acter and  mission. 

Our  Lord,  Christ  Jesus,  appealed  to  the  testimony  of  the 
senses,  when  he  \'?ould  settle  the  faith  of  his  disciples. 
"  And  as  they  thus  spake,  Jesus  himself  stood  in  the  midst 
of  them,  and  saith  unto  them.  Peace  be  unto  you.  But  they 
were  terrified  and  aftrighted,  and  supposed  that  they  had 
seen  a  spu'it.  And  he  said  unto  them.  Why  are  ye 
troubled  ?  and  why  do  thoughts  arise  in  your  hearts  ? 
Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself,  handh 
me,  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  blood,  as  ye 
see  me  have.  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken  he  shewed 
them  his  hands  and  his  feet."  (Luke  xxiv.  36-40).  "And 
after  eight  days  again  his  disciples  were  within,  and 
Thomas  was  with  them.  Then  came  Jesus,  the  door 
being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said.  Peace  be  unto 
you.  Then  said  he  to  Thomas,  Reach  hither  thy  finger, 
and  behold  my  hands;  and  reach  hither  thy  hand,  and 
thrust  it  into  my  side ;  an<l  be  not  faithless,  but  believing. 
And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him.  My  Lord  and 
my  God.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thomas,  because  thou  ha,«t 
seen  me,  thou  hast  believed ;  blessed  are  they  that  have 
not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed."  (Jno.  xx.  26-29.) 

The  Holy  Spu'it,  speaking  through  inspired  Luke,  calls 
the  testimony  of  our  bodily  senses  respecting  matters 
which  come  properly  within  the  domain  of  the  senses, 
" infallible pr oof y  "  To  whom,  i.  e.,  his  Apostles, — also  he 
showed  himself  alive,  after  his  passion,  by  many  infallible 
proofs,  being  seen  of  them  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the 
things  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of  God."  (Acts  i.  3.) 


Conclusions. 

In  order  that  I  may  receive  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation  as  an  article  in  my  creed : — 


108  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

(1)  I  must  begin  by  discrediting  the  testimony  'of  my 
bodily  senses,  in  a  matter  which  seems  clearly  to  come 
within  the  proper  domain  of  the  senses, — and  this  in  a  case 
where  that  testimony  is  explicit, — is  the  testimony  of  my 
senses  in  broad  day-light  and  when  my  organs  of  sense 
are  in  a  healthy  condition, — where  the  testimony  of  my 
senses  is  confirmed  by  that  of  the  senses  of  all  other  men, 
Bomanists  as  well  as  Protestants,  that  are  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  question : — and  so,  I  must  do  violence  to  one  of 
the  clearly  defined  and  deeply  impressed  laws  of  belief 
which  God  has  incorporated  in  my  nature, — must  adopt  a 
principle  which,  in  so  far  as  material  things  ai-e  concerned 
— leads  to  "the  most  complete  and  destructive  infidelity." 

(2)  I  must  discredit  the  testimony  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion— the  results  of  chemical  analysis — as  well  as  the  direct 
testimony  of  my  senses  ;  and  in  an  article  of  my  creed,  re- 
ject, as  unworthy  of  credit,  proof  which  the  law  of  God,  as 
made  known  in  the  requirements  of  the  well-being  of 
society,  demands  that  I  trust,  even  to  the  extent  of  taking 
the  life  of  a  fellow-man  upon  its  trustworthiness. 

(3)  I  must  discredit  the  kind  of  testimony  with  which 
God  authenticated  the  divine  mission  of  Christ  my  Saviour; 
— the  kind  of  testimony  to  which  our  Lord  himself  appeal- 
ed; in  his  answer  to  the  question  of  John,  by  his  disciples ; 
and  after  his  resurrection,  when  he  would  settle  the  faith 
of  his  Apostles  in  preparation  for  going  "into  all  the  world 
to  preach  his  gospel  to  every  creature  "  : — the  kind  of  tes- 
timony upon  which  the  Apostle  John  would  have  the  church 
rest  her  faith  in  all  coming  time; — the  kind  of  testimony 
which  Luke,  speaking  imder  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit, 
calls  "infallible  proof," — and  so,  adopt  a  principle  of  infi- 
delity as  destructive  in  the  province  of  revelation,  as  it  has 
been  already  shown  to  be  in  that  of  nature  and  every-day  life. 

Now,  I  do  not  assert  that  the  declaration  of  God  may 
not  require  me  to  do  all  this :  that  the  declaration  of  God 
is  not  worthy  of  more  credit  than  the  testimony  of  man's 
senses,  of  chemical  analysis,  and  of  all  conceivable  earthly 
testimony : — but  I  do  assert, — and  every  thoughtful  man 
must  assent  to  the  justice  of  the  position — that  the  testimony 
of  God  requiring  of  me  such  a  course  should  be  unquestiona- 


Conclusio)u.  109 

bly  God's  testimony : — if  given  in  liiiman  language,  it  should 
be  express, — not  in  doubtful  phrase,  in  words  which  readily 
admit  of  a  different  interpretation, — but  in  language  which 
can  have  but  one  meaning; — the  presumption  against  any 
such  testimony  of  God  is  so  strong  that  nothing  short  of 
such  language  can  be  suffered  to  set  it  aside. 

The  Scripture  authority  for  transubstantiation,  to  which 
Romanists  appeal,  is — (1)  Our  Lord's  discourse  at  Caper- 
naum; (2)  The  words  of  institution,  and  (3)  The  xi.  ch.  of 
Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ;  and  to  an  examina- 
tion of  these  we  now  ask  the  reader's  attention. 


110  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE   DISCOUESE   AT   CAPEENAUM,   JOHN  VI. 

g43.  Introductory  Words,  ts.  1-34.  g44.  Jesus  the  bread  of  life,  vs.  35-47.  §45. 
Eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man,  vs.  48-59. 
g46.  The  effect  of  this  discourse  upon  his  hearer-s  vs.  60-G9.  §47.  Cardinal 
Wiseman  on  the  established  and  conventional  signification  of  "  eating 
my  flesh."  §48.  Cardinal  Wiseman  on  the  Jews'  Cavils.  §49.  Is  John  vi. 
51-58  a  promise  of  the  Lord's  Supper? 

§43.   Introductory   Words,  vs.  1-34. 

In  a  desert  place,  on  the  east  side  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
our  Lord  wrought  a  wondrous  miracle,  feeding  five  thou- 
sand persons  with  "  five  barley  loaves  and  two  small 
fishes."  Each  of  the  Evangelists  records  the  miracle,  (see 
Matt.  xiv.  13-33;  Mark  vi.  30-52;  Luke  ix.  11-17),  but 
John  alone  records  the  discourse  at  Capernaum  for  which 
it  gave  occasion, 

John  alone,  also,  in  his  account  of  the  miracle,  makes 
mention  of  two  facts  which  threw  some  light  upon  the 
peculiar  language,  and  turn  of  thought  of  the  discourse 
itself. 

(1)  "  And  the  passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews  was  nigh," 
vs.  4.  This  enables  us  to  fix  with  some  degree  of  cer- 
tainty the  time  at  which  the  discourse  was  delivered. 
The  passover  mentioned  was,  certainly,  not  the  one  at  which 
he  was  crucified ;  and  as  the  passover  was  an  annual  feast, 
this  discourse  must  have  been  delivered,  at  least  a  year, 
possibly  two  years  before  his  institution  of  the  sacrament 
of  the  Supper,  which  event  took  place  "  on  the  same  night 
in  which  he  was  betrayed."  (1  Cor.  xi.  23.)  The  near  ap- 
proach of  the  passover  accounts  also  for  so  great  a  multitude 
gathering  around  him  in  a  desert  place  at  this  particular 


The  Discourse  at  Capernaum.  Ill 

time.  Thoy  were  Jews,  from  the  country  to  the  north 
and  west  of  Capernaum,  on  their  way  up  to  Jerusalem, 
and  travelling  that  way  in  order  to  avoid  passing  through 
Samaria. 

(2)  "  Then  those  men,  when  they  had  seen  the  miracles 
that  Jesus  did,  said,  This  is  of  a  truth  that  Prophet  that 
should  come  into  the  world.  When  Jesus  therefore  per-- 
ceived  that  they  would  come,  and  take  him  by  force,  to 
make  him  a  king,  he  departed  again  into  a  mountain 
himself  alone;"  vs.  14,  15.  That  Messiah's  kingdom,  pre- 
dicted by  the  Prophets,  was  to  be  a  temporal  kingdom  was 
the  universal  faith  of  the  Jews  in  our  Lord's  day ;  and 
they  clung  to  this  idea  the  more  obstinately  because  of 
their  peculiar  situation  at  the  time ;  a  proud  but  conquered 
people;  the  favorites  of  heaven,  in  their  own  estimation, 
but  now  subject  to  the  rule  of  a  detested  heathen  power. 
"When,  then,  they  witnessed  our  Lord's  wondrous  miracle, 
a  miracle  which  would  suggest  his  ability  to  provide  for  an 
army, — the  hope  of  a  tempoi-al  deliverance, — that  now, 
at  length,  they  should  see  realized  all  their  bright  antici- 
pations of  a  glorious,  world-wide  kingdom,  with  Jerusa- 
lem as  its  capital,  took  possession  of  their  minds ;  and  in 
the  patriotic  enthusiasm  awakened  by  these  hopes  they 
were    ready  to   "  take  him   by  force,  and   make  him   a 

It  was  with  such  hopes  and  anticipations  the  multitude 
followed  him  to  Capernaum;  and  this  will  explain  the 
opening  words  of  the  discourse  under  examination — 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  ye  seek  me  not  be- 
cause ye  saw  the  miracles,  but  because  ye  did  eat  of  the 
loaves,  and  were  filled,"  vs.  26.  To  reclaim  them,  if  pos- 
sible, from  their  fatal  mistake'  respecting  his  character 
and  mission,  he  says — "  Labor  not  for  the  meat  which 
perisheth,  but  for  that  meat  which  endureth  unto  ever- 
lasting life,  which  the  Son  of  man  shall  give  unto  you ; 
for  him  hath  God  the  Fatlier  sealed,"  vs.  27.  That  is — 
Do  not  "  seek  first "  the  wealth,  and  honors,  and  pleasures 
of  this  world,  as  ye  are  doing  in  setting  your  hearts  upon 
Messiah's  establishment  of  a  glorious  worldly  kingdom  : — 
but  "seek  first"  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  deliverance  from 


112  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

sin,  and  restoration  to  God's  favor,  and  an  inheritance  in 
heaven  after  you  are  done  with  this  world, — all  that  enters 
into  the  scriptural  idea  of  salvation ;  for  this  it  is,  and  not 
the  other,  the  Son  of  man  came  to  give ;  and  as  the  giver 
of  this  salvation  hath  "  God  the  Father  sealed  him," 

These  solemn  words  arrest  their  attention,  for  the  time, 
and  they  ask — "  What  shall  we  do  that  we  might  work 
the  works  of  God  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  ho 
hath  sent,"  vs.  28,  29.  Thus  does  he  teach  them  that  the 
works  of  God  to  which  they  are  called  then  and  there,  are 
not,  to  forsake  their  homes,  and  the  ordinary  pursuits  of 
a  peaceful  life,  and  don  the  armor  of  the  soldier,  and 
follow  him  in  long  marches,  and  fight  under  him  in  bloody 
battles ;  but  to  believe  in  him,  and  receive  the  true  "  gos- 
pel of  the  grace  of  God  "  at  his  lips, — to  believe  in  him 
with  a  faith  which  should  perfect  itself  in  works. 

The  evidence  which  men  receive  as  satisfactory  proof  of 
that  which  they  wish  to  believe,  as  a  general  thing,  is 
very  far  fi'om  satisfactory  when  offered  in  proof  of  a  dis- 
tasteful truth  : — and  hence,  when  our  Lord  propounded 
a  doctrine  respecting  Messiah's  kingdom  which  gave  a 
death-blow  to  their  long  cherished  hopes,  the  miracle  he 
had  wrought,  is  no  longer  sufficient  proof  that  he  "  is  of  a 
truth  that  Prophet  that  should  come  into  the  world." — 
"  They  said,  therefore,  unto  him,  what  sign  [semdon) 
shewest  thou  then,  that  we  may  see  and  believe  thee? 
What  dost  thou  work  ?  Our  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the 
desert ;  as  it  is  written,  He  gave  them  bread  from  heaven 
to  eat,"  vs.  30,  31.  That  is,  they  say,  in  declaring  that 
"  the  work  of  God  is  to  believe  in  thee,"  thou  puttest 
forth  an  extraordinary  claim.  When  Moses  came  to  do 
an  extraordinary  work,  he  authenticated  his  mission  by 
feeding  our  fathers  with  bread  from  heaven, — a  far 
greater  miracle  than  that  thou  hast  wrought.  Thou  hast 
fed  five  thousand ;  he  fed  not  less  than  three  million  of 
people.  Thou  hast  furnished  one  meal ;  he  fed  that  vast 
multitude  for  forty  years.  As  thou  puttest  forth  an  ex- 
traordinary claim,  show  us  some  correspondently  extra- 
ordinary sign,  "  that  we  may  see  and  believe." 


Jcsv.-'i,  "the  Bread  of  Life"  113 

"  Thou  Jesus  said  imto  them,  Vorily,  verily,  I  say  imto 
you,  Moses  gave  you  not  that  bread  from  heaven ;" — i.  e., 
Moses  did  not  work  that  miracle  in  his  own  name,  and  by 
his  own  power,  as  I  multiplied  the  loaves  and  fishes  on 
yesterday ;  for  he  himself  said  unto  the  people,  "  This  is 
the  bread  which  the  Lord  hath  given  you  to  eat,"  (Ex, 
xvi.  15.)  "But  my  Father  givcth  you  the*  true  broad 
from  heaven," — true,  as  contradistinguished  from  the 
manna  which  was  but  a  type, — "  For  the  bread  of  God  is 
he  which  cometh  down  from  heaven,  and  giveth  life," — 
spiritual  life,  everlasting  life,  and  so,  true  life, — "  unto 
the  world,"  vs.  32,  33.  Partially  apprehending  our  Lord's 
meaning,  and  for  the  time  feeling  that  "the  meat  w'hich 
endure th  unto  everlasting  life,"  was  immeasurably  supe- 
rior to  "  the  meat  which  perisheth,"  "  They  said  unto 
him,  Lord,  evermore  give  us  this  bread." 

§  44.  Jesus  "  the  Bread  of  Life,"  vs.  35-47. 

"  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread  of  life ;  he  that 
"  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger ;  and  he  that  believeth 
"  on  me  shall  never  thirst,"  vs.  35.  The  figurative  use  of 
the  words  hunger  and  thirst,  bread  and  water,  to  describe 
wants  of  the  human  soul,  and  the  spiritual  supplies  with 
which  the  true  Messiah  would  meet  and  satisfy  these 
wants,  must  have  been  familiar  to  our  Lord's  hearers,  from 
their  frequent  use  in  this  sense  in  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures ; — and  if  they  but  imperfectly  understood  him, 
it  was  not  because  he  had  not  spoken  intelligibly ;  but  be- 
cause their  long  cherished  prejudices  blinded  their  minds. 

He  saw  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  did  but  imperfectly 
understand  him ;  and  further,  that  what  they  did  under- 
stand they  were  unwilling  to  receive ;  and  hence  his 
words, — "  I  said  unto  you,  ye  also  have  seen  me,  and  be- 
"lieve  not.  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to 
"  me;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast 
"  out.  For  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own 
"  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.  And  this  is  the 
"  Father's  will  which  hath  sent  me,  that  of  all  which  ho 
"  hath  given  me,  I  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it 


114  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Si'^yper. 

"  up  again  at  the  last  day.  And  this  is  the  will  of  him 
"  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and 
"  believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life ;  and  I  will 
"raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  vs.  36-40.  To  the  twO 
truths  already  taught,  and  which  had  given  offence  to  his 
hearers,  viz — that  Messiah's  kingdom  was  to  be  a  spiritual 
and  not  a  temporal  one, — and  that  he  claimed  for  himself 
a  nearer  relationship  to  God,  and  a  diviner  mission  thaii 
that  of  Moses ;  he  here  adds  a  third,  which  gives  them  even 
greater  offence, — that  if  they,  having  "seen  him,  believed 
not,"  it  was  because  they  were  not  given  him  of  the 
Father. — The  same  truth,  in  substance,  which  he  uttered 
on  another  occa,sion,  in  the  words, — "  If  ye  were  Abraham's 
children  ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham."  (Jno.  viii.  39.) 

Thus  offended — "  The  Jews  then  murmured  at  him,  be- 
"  cause  he  said,  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  from 
"heaven.  And  they  said,  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of 
"  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ?  how  is  it  then 
"that  he  saith,  I  came  down  from  heaven?"  vs.  41,  42. 
Jesus  understanding  the  spirit  in  which  this  cavil  origi- 
nated, for  it  was  nothing  better  than  a  cavil,  gives  them 
no  explanation  of  his  words,  but  solemnly  reiterates  the 
declaration ;  with  the  added  truth,  that  this  all  had  been 
foretold  in  their  own  Scriptures.  "  Jesus  therefore  answer- 
"ed  and  said  unto  them.  Murmur  not  among  yourselves. 
"  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath 
"  sent  me  draw  him :  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
"  day.  It  is  written  in  the  Prophets,  And  they  shall  all  be 
"  taught  of  God.  Every  man  therefore  that  hath  heard, 
"  and  hath  learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto  me,  Not 
"  that  any  man  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he  which  is  of 
"  God,  he  hath  seen  the  Father.  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
"  unto  you*  he  that  beheveth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life." 
vs.  43-47. 

To  the  substantial  correctness  of  the  exposition,  given 
above,  of  this  portion  of  our  Lord's  discourse  at  Capernaum, 
Cardinal  Wiseman  assents, — more  particularly,  to  our  in- 
terpretation of  all  our  Lord  says  of  hunger  and  thirst,  of 
bread  and  eating  that  bread,  that  it  is  to  be  understood 
figuratively,  of  gospel  salvation,  and  of  the  reception  of 


Eating  the  Flesh  and  Dnnhing  the  Blood.        115 

gospel  salvation  by  foith.  Ho  writes — ""We  are  therefore 
authorized  to  conclude,  that  whether  we  consider  the  custom- 
ary meaning  of  the  phrases  as  in  use  among  the  Jews  of  our 
Saviour's  time,  or  of  the  clear  and  decisive  explanation 
which  he  himself  gave  to  them,  those  who  heard  him  could 
not  possibly  misunderstand  this  portion  of  his  discourse, 
nor  give  any  other  interpretation  to  the  figure  there  used, 
than  that  of  being  spiritually  nourished  by  the  doctrines 
which  he  brought  down  from  heaven." — "In  the  verse 
which  I  have  just  quoted  (v.  31)  this  explanation  is  given 
in  terms  so  clear,  as  to  preclude  all  danger  of  misunder- 
standing. The  expression  corning  to  Christ,  being  deter- 
mined by  the  piarallelism  in  that  verse  to  be  the  same  as  the 
believing  in  him  of  its  second  member,  almost  every  verse 
from  that  to  the  forty-eighth,  now  speaks  of  this  doctrine 
under  one  or  other  of  these  phrases  (see  vs.  36,  37,  40,  44, 
45,  47.)  The  last  of  these  verses  contains  a  complete  and 
striking  compendium  and  epilogue  of  the  whole  passage." 
{Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  pp.  67,  68.)  "  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you.  He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting 
life."  And  in  another  place  he  writes — "On  the  significa- 
tion of  this  discourse  as  far  as  the  forty-eighth  or  fifty-first 
verses,  Protestants  and  Catholics  are  equally  agreed.  It 
refers  entirely  to  believing  in  him  (Christ).  It  is  at  one  of 
the  verses  just  mentioned,  that  we  begin  to  differ  most 
materially  upon  the  subject  of  his  doctrine."  {Lectures  on 
the  Eucharist,  ^.51.) 

§  45.  Eating  the  flesh  and  drinJcing  the  blood  of  the  Son 
of  Man. 

"  I  am  the  bread  of  life.  Your  fathers  did  eat  manna 
"in  the  wilderness,  and  are  dead.  This  is  the  bread  which 
"  cometh  down  from  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof, 
"and  not  die.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down 
"  from  heaven ;  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live 
"for  ever,"  vs.  48-51.  Thus  far,  our  Lord  uses  the  same 
figure  which  has  run  through  all  the  former  part  of  the 
discourse,  i.e.,  the  figure  of  bread, — bread  of  life;  a  figure 
evidently  suggested  by  the  miracle  which  had  given  occa- 


116  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

sion  for  his  hearers  gathering  around  him;  and  which  was 
rendered  still  more  appropriate  to  the  occasion,  by 
the  Jews'  reference  to  the  manna  with  which  Israel  had 
been  fed  in  Moses'  day.  The  only  additional  truth  he  states 
is  in  the  words,  "  Your  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  are  dead;"  words  which  he  afterwards  repeats, 
at  the  close  of  the  discourse, — "  This  is  the  bread  which 
"came  down  from  heaven:  not  as  your  fathers  did  eat 
*' manna  and  are  dead:  he  that  eateth  this  bread  shall 
"  live  for  ever,"  vs.  58.  As  the  Jews  had  spoken  of  the 
manna  as  one  of  God's  greatest  gifts,  calling  it  "bread  from 
heaven," — doubtless  referring  to  Ps.  Ixxviii.  24,  "  And  he 
rained  down  manna  upon  them  to  eat,  and  had  given  them 
of  the  corn  of  heaven," — his  design  in  these  words  was  to 
direct  their  attention  to  the  immeasurable  superiority  of 
the  gift  of  God  offered  them  in  him.  The  manna  belonged 
to  "  the  meat  which  perisheth;  "  was  designed  to  admin- 
ister to  the  body,  and  even  in  this  inferior  ministry,  it 
could  avail  but  for  a  season;  those  who  ate  of  it  all  died. 
But  the  bread  which  God  o£f3red  them  in  him  belonged  to 
"the  meat  which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life;  "  was  de- 
signed to  minister  to  the  soul  of  man,  and  to  secure  to  him 
everlasting  life. 

"And  the  bread  which  I  will  give  him  is  my  flesh, 
"  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  (Ver.  51.) 
Here,  our  Lord  changes — not  the  subject  of  his  discourse, 
but  the  figure  only.  He  has  been  speaking  of  salvation, — 
that  which  would  satisfy  man's  spiritual  hunger  and  thirst, 
under  the  figure  of  bread ;  and  he  now  says — "  The  bread 
which  I  will  give  is  ray  flesh." 

The  Jews  cavil  at  this  declaration  : — "  The  Jews  there- 
upon strove  among  themselves,  saying,  how  can  this  man 
give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?  "  (Ver.  52.)  When  Jesus  repeats 
it  emphatically,  and  going  into  detail.  "  Then  Jesus  said 
"  unto  them.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  eat  the 
"flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have 
"  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my 
"  blood,  hath  eternal  life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
"last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and- my  blood  is 
"drink    indeed.     He   that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh 


Eating  the  Flci<]i  and  Drhikiwj  the  Blood.       117 

"  my  blood,  dwcllctli  in  mc,  and  I  in  liim.  As  the  living 
"  Father  hath  sent  ine,  and  I  live  by  the  Father ;  so  ho 
"  that  eatetli  me,  even  he  shall  live  by  me."  (Vers.  53-57.) 
And  then  coming  back  to  the  declaration  with  which  he 
introduced  this  part  of  his  discourse, — "  The  bread  that  I 
"  will  give  is  my  flesh  " — he  closes  with  the  words — "  This 
"  is  the  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven ;  not  as  your 
"  fathers  did  eat  manna,  and  are  dead ;  he  that  eateth  of 
"  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever."  (Ver.  58.) 

That  what  our  Lord  here  speaks  of  under  the  designa- 
tion of  his  flesh,  and  \na,  flesh  and  blood,  is  the  same  w^iich 
he  has  spoken  of,  in  the  former  part  of  the  discourse,  under 
the  designation  of  bread,  and  the  bread  of  life,  is  evident — 

(1)  From  his  express  declaration,  made  at  the  beginning 
of  this  part  of  the  discourse,  and  afterwards,  repeated  at 
its  close,  "  The  bread  which  I  will  give  him  is  my  flesh;  " 
— "This  (i.  €.,  mj flesh  and  blood  of  which  I  have  been 
speaking)  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven," 
— in  his  words,  "  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven," 
evidently  referring  to  his  words  at  which  the  Jews,  a  little 
while  before,  had  murmured — "  For  the  bread  of  God  is 
he  which  comcth  down  from  heaven."  (Ver.  33.) 

(2)  From  the  fact  that  the  result  of  eating  the  bread, 
and  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,  as  well  as 
that  of  believing  in  him,  is  expressly  declared  to  be  one 
and  the  same.  "  And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me, 
that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  belicveth  on  him, 
may  have  everlasting  life  ;  and  Itvill  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  dai/."  (Ver.  40.) — "This  is  the  bread  which  cometh 
down  from  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof,  and  not 
die.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven ; 
if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for  ever."  (Vers. 
50,  51.) — "Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day." 
(Ver.  54.)  The  expression,  "  everlasting  life,"  is  equivalent 
to  a  "  complete  salvation."  Now,  either  believing  07i  Christ, 
eating  him  as  the  living  bread,  and  eating  his  flesh  and 
drinking  his  blood,  mean  substantially  the  same  thing; 
or,  our  Lord,  in  this  one  discourse,  makes  known  three 
different  ways  of  salvation  for  lost  men. 


118  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

(3)  The  Council  of  Trent  expressly  decides  that  "  eating 
the  bread,''  and  *'  eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood," 
as  the  expressions  are  used  in  this  chapter,  mean  one  and 
the  same  thing.  In  their  argument  to  prove  that  there  is 
no  necessity  for  "communion  under  both  species,"  they 
declare — "  For  he  who  said,  "  Except  you  eat  the  flesh  of 
"  the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  you  shall  not  have 
"  life  in  you  (ver.  51),  also  said :  He  that  eateth  this  bread 
*' shall  live  for  ever  (ver.  59);  and  he  who  said.  He  that 
"  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  everlasting 
"  life  (ver.  55),  also  said  :  The  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my 
"flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world  (ver.  52);  and,  in  fine,  he 
"  who  said,  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 
"  blood,  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  him  (ver.  57),  said,  never- 
"  theless.  He  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever  (ver. 
*'  59.")  ("  Decrees  of  Council  of  Trent,  Tv)entij -third 
Session,  ch.  i.")  Now,  it  is  true  that  the  Council  of  Trent 
does  not  interpret  the  expressions  under  examination  as 
we  do, — they  understand  the  bread,  and  the  flesh  and  blood 
literally,  whilst  we  understand  them,  both  alike,  figura- 
tively. But  they  do  decide,  that  they  mean  one  and  the 
same  thing ;  and  it  is  as  deciding  this  point  alone  we  have 
quoted  them. 

If  this  be  so, — if  the  two  expressions  "giving  them 
bread  from  heaven,"  and  "giving  them  his  flesh  and 
blood,"  have  but  one  meaning,  the  question  at  once 
arises,  why  does  he  use  them  both  ?  why  does  he  change 
the  one  figure  for  the  other  ?  We  answer — for  two 
reasons — 

(1)  He  substitutes  the  figure  of  giving  his  flesh,  for  that 
of  giving  them  bread,  to  teach  them  that  the  salvation  for 
lost  man  which  was  in  him  involved  the  necessity  of  his 
death.  It  is  not  on  the  flesh  of  living,  but  of  slain  animals 
men  feed.  From  a  very  early  period  of  his  ministry  he 
had  spoken  of  this  necessity,  though  always  with  some 
reserve ; — "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness, even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up,  {i.  e., 
crucified,  (see  Jno.  xii.  33.)  That  whosoever  believeth 
in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  (Jno.  iii. 
14,  15.)     And  yet,  under  the  influence  of  their  Jewish 


Eating  the  Flesh  and  Drink'uvj  the  Blood.       119 

prejudices  respecting  Messiah  and  his  kingdom,  even  "  the 
twelve"  seem  to  have  discr(5dited  the  fact  of  his  approach- 
ing death,  at  a  date  later  than  that  at  which  this  discourse 
at  Ca{)ernaum  was  delivered.  Matthew  tells  us  that  when 
Jesus  declared  to  them  that  "he  must  go  up  to  Jerusalem, 
and  suffer  many  things  of  the  elders  and  chief  priests,  and 
scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the  third  day ; 
— Then  Peter  took  him,  and  began  to  rebuke  him,  saying, 
Be  it  far  from  thee.  Lord ;  this  shall  not  be  unto  thee." 
(Matt.  xvi.  21,  22.) 

The  Jews  who  had  gathered  around  him  at  Capernaum 
were  "ready  to  take  him  by  force,  and  make  him  a  king," 
vs.  15.  Their  hearts  were  set  on  the  glories  of  the  earthly 
kingdom  which  they  believed  Messiah  would  establish 
when  he  came.  They  were  ready  to  "  labour  for  thB  meat 
which  perisheth,"  and  for  that  alone  :  and  as  long  as  they 
held  such  views,  and  continued  in  the  temper  they  then 
were  in,  it  would  be  in  vain  to  preach  the  true  "  gospel  of 
the  grace  of  God  "  to  them.  Hence,  from  the  very  com- 
mencement of  his  discourse,  our  Lord  labours  to  correct 
their  false  notions,  and  to  turn  their  attention  from  these 
inferior  things,  and  fix  it  upon  "the  meat  which  endur- 
eth  unto  everlasting  life."  With  this  end  in  view,  he  says 
to  them, — "  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on 
him  whom  he  hath  sent;"  (vs.  29.)  "  I  am  the  bread  of 
life;  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger;  and  he  that 
believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst,"  (vs.  35.)  "  This  is  the 
bread  which  cometh  down  from  heaven,  that  a  man  may 
eat  thereof,  and  not  die,"  (vs.  50.)  How  he  came  to  use 
this  figure  of  bread  we  have  already  seen.  And  now,  to 
give  a  death  blow  to  their  hopes  of  a  temporal  kingdom  to 
be  established  by  Messiah  he  declares  that  Messiah  must 
die; — that  it  is  through  his  death  he  is  to  bring  s/\lvation  to 
lost  men; — that  the  bread  of  life  on  which  they  must  feed  is 
his  "flesh,  which  he  wiU  give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 

(2)  A  second  reason,  and  the  principal  one,  why  our 
Lord  makes  just  the  change  of  figure  which  he  does, — 
why  he  substitutes  the  expression,  eating  his  flesh  and 
drinking  his  blood,  for  eating  the  bread  which  came  down 
from  heaven,  is  that  he  may  thus  set  forth  the  fact,  that 


120  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

his  death  must  be  a  sacrificial  death  in  order  to  bring 
life  to  "the  world." 

John,  who  alone  records  this  discourse  at  Capernaum, 
also  notes  the  fact  that  ''  the  passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews 
was  nigh,"  (vs.  4.)  In  this  way  we  account  for  the  multi- 
tude that  gathered  around  Jesus  in  "a  desert  place"  to  the 
east  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  They  were  on  their  way  to 
observe  the  approaching  passover  at  Jerusalem :  and  so, 
naturally,  their  minds  would  be  -full  of  the  feast  which 
they  were  about  to  celebrate.  In  that  feast,  the  principal 
sacrifice  was  that  of  a  lamb,  the  flesh  of  which  was  to  be 
eaten  by  them,  and  a  certain  portion  of  wine  was  to  be 
drank  on  the  occasion,  as  the  symbol  of  the  blood  of  that 
lamb. 

The. expression  "eating  the  flesh"  is  one  often  used  in 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  with  reference  to  these  sac- 
rificial feasts,  and  particularly  this  feast  of  the  passover. 
In  the  account  of  the  original  institution  of  the  passover 
we  read, — "And  they  shall  eat  the  flesh  in  that  night, 
roast  with  fire,  and  unleavened  bread;  and  with  bitter 
herbs  they  shall  eat  it.  Eat  not  of  it  raw,  nor  sodden 
at  all  with  water,  but  roast  with  fire.  .  .  .  And  thus  shall 
ye  eat  it,  with  your  loins  girded.  ...  In  one  house  shall 
it  be  eaten  ;  thou  shalt  not  carry  forth  aught  of  the  flesh 
abroad  out  of  the  house."  (Ex.  xii.  8,  9,  11,  46.)  In  the 
general  law  respecting  peace-ofFerings,  when  of  a  eucharis- 
tic  character, — and  the  passover  belonged  distinctively  to 
this  class  of  sacrifices — we  read,  "  And  the  flesh  of  the 
sacrifice  of  his  peace-offerings  for  thanksgiving  shall  he 

eaten  the  same  day  that  it  is  offered But  the  soul 

that  eateth  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace-offerings, 
that  pertain  unto  the  Lord,  having  his  uncleanness  upon 
him,  even  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off' from  his  people."  (Lev. 
vii.  15,  20.)  When  we  call  to  mind  the  facts,  that  Mes- 
siah's atoning  death  has  been  foreshadowed  by  every 
bleeding  sacrifice  laid  upon  God's  altar  from  the  days  of 
Abel ;  and  that  John  Baptist,  whom  "  all  regarded  as  a 
Prophet,"  had  announced  him  in  the  words — "Behold  the 
Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world," 
(J no.  i.  29,)  we  must  admit  that  nothing  but  inveterate 


Tlic  Effect  of  tills  Discourse  upon  his  Hearers.    121 

projuJice  could  have  prevented  the  Jews  from  understand- 
ing our  Lord  as  teaching  the  sacrificial  character  of  his 
death,  when  for  the  figure  of  feeding  upon  him  as  the  bread 
of  life,  he  substituted  that  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking 
his  blood.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  good  and  sufficient 
reason,  suggested  by  the  record  itself,  why  our  Lord 
changed  the  figure  used  to  set  forth  the  salvation  through 
faith  to  be  found  in  him. 

§  46.  The  effect  of  this  discourse  iqion  his  hearers,  vs.  60-69. 

"  Many  therefore  of  his  disciples,  when  they  had  heard 
"  this,  said.  This  is  a  hard  saying  :  who  can  hear  it  ?"  vs.  60. 
The  disciples  here  spoken  of  are  not  the  ticclve, — the  effect 
of  this  discourse  upon  them  is  afterwards  mentioned, — but 
those  who  had  followed  him  from  the  other  side  of  the  sea 
after  witnessing  his  miracles.  They  had  followed  him, 
filled  with  the  expectation  that  Messiah's  kingdom  was  to 
be  a  temporal  kingdom,  in  the  riches  and  glory  of  which 
they  hoped  to  participate.  Our  Lord's  discourse,  especially 
the  latter  portion  of  it,  in  which  he  taught  them  that 
Messiah  must  die,  and  die  a  sacrificial  death  in  order  to 
secure  salvation  for  a  lost  world, — that  eternal  life  must 
come  to  them  by  "  eating  hjs  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood," 
gave  a  death-blow  to  all  their  cherished  hopes.  Here,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  lesson  with  which  he  opens  the  dis- 
course— "  labor  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth  " — the 
evidence  which  would  have  been  satisfactory  proof  of  a 
doctrine  they  wished  to  believe,  was  far  from  satisfactory 
when  offered  as  proof  of  a  doctrine  so  distasteful  as  that 
they  had  just  heard  from  his  lips.  Hence,  they  said,  "This 
is  a  hard  saying,  who  can  hear  it?" 

"  When  Jesus  knew  in  himself  that  his  disciples  mur- 
" mured  at  it,  he  said  unto  them,  Doth  this  offend  you? 
"  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up  where 
"he  was  before?"  vs.  61,  62.  Here  two  things  are  plain — 
(1)  That  the  Son  of  man,  the  Messiah,  was  not  to  "  abide 
for  ever  "  among  men,  as  the  head  of  a  temporal  kingdom, 
as  the  Jews  expected,  (see  Jno.  xii.  34),  and  (2)  that  he 
who  "  came  down  from  heaven,"  should  be  seen  to  return 


122  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

thither;  and  so,  in  the  most  striking  manner  possible, 
should  he  give  proof  of  his  Messiahship  in  the  very  act  of 
his  withdrawing  from  the  world.  How  all  this  was  after- 
wards accomplished  we  have  an  account  in  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Acts.  Our  Lord's  reply,  here,  finds  its  parallel  in 
his  reply  to  the  high-priest,  on  the  occasion  of  his  last 
trial  at  Jerusalem.  "  And  the  high-priest  answered  and 
said  unto  him,  I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that  thou 
tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Jesus 
saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said ;  nevertheless  I  say  unto 
you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the 
right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven." 
(Matt.  xxvi.  63,  64.)  That  is,  you  now  reject  my  claim 
to  be  received  as  the  Messiah,  though  sufficiently  proved, 
and  that  in  the  very  way  pointed  out  in  your  own  Scrip- 
tures; and  you  do  this,  because  you  are  not  willing  to 
receive  my  doctrines, — they  are  "  hard  sayings  "  to  you. 
Yet  rest  assured  of  this ;  that  your  unbelief  shall  not 
change  the  course  of  events  which  God  has  determined  on. 
He  will  execute  all  his  purposes  respecting  Messiah,  and 
that  before  your  eyes. 

"  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth;  the  flesh  profiteth 
"  nothing ;  the  words  that  I  speak  " — or  rather,  that  I  have 
spoken — unto  you,  "  they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life,"  vs. 
63.  In  the  Authorized  Version  the  word  Spirit  in  the  first 
part  of  this  verse  is  printed  with  a  Capital, — and  in  this 
particular  the  Douay  Bible  agrees  with  the  Authorized 
Version — showing  that  the  authors  of  that  version  under- 
stood it  to  mean  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  flesh,  when  spoken 
of  in  contrast  with  the  Spirit,  is  to  be  understood  of  man's 
sin-ruined  nature,  as  in  (Rom.  viii.  1-9);  and  then,  our 
Lord's  words  would  mean, — the  literal  eating  of  my  flesh 
and  drinking  my  blood,  though  the  result  thereof  should 
be  the  incorporation  of  that  body  and  blood  in  your  sin- 
ruined  human  nature  "  will  profit  you  nothing:  " — it  is  the 
Holy  Spirit,  through  the  instrumentality  of  my  words, 
which  are  spirit  and  life,  who  alone  can  impart  that  ever- 
lasting life  of  which  I  have  spoken: — or,  as  Dr.  Dabney 
has  well  expressed  it : 

"This  is  a  spiritual  work;  no  material  flesh  can  have 


Tlie  Effect  of  this  Discourse  upon  his  Hearers.    123 

any  profitable  agency  to  promote  it,  as  it  is  a  propagation 
of  life  in  the  soul ;  the  agency  must  be  spiritual,  not  physi- 
cal. And  the  vehicle  of  that  agency  is  the  gospel's  word, 
not  any  material  tlesh,  however  connected  with  the  redeem- 
ing Person.  The  thing  you  lack,  is  not  any  such  literal 
eating  (a  thing  as  useless  as  impossible),  but  true,  living 
faith  in  Christ."  {Dahneys  Theology,  p.  813.) 

"  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  believe  not.  For  Jesus 
"  knew  from  the  beginning  who  they  were  that  believed 
"  not,  and  who  should  betray  him.  And  he  said,  therefore 
"  said  I  unto  you,  that  no  man  can  come  unto  me,  except 
"  it  were  given  unto  him  of  my  Father.  From  that  time 
"  many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and  walked  no  more  with 
"him,"  vs.  64-66. 

This  is  a  sad  result  which  these  words  record ;  but  it  is 
just  the  result  in  the  case  of  similarly  minded  hearers  of 
this  same  truth  in  every  age.  "  The  salvation  of  Christ  is 
exactly  suited  to  the  sinner's  necessities,  but  it  is  not  at  all 
suited  to  his  natural  tastes  and  inclinations.  It  is  too  good 
for  him — too  humbling  to  please  the  proud  heart.  It  is  too 
holy  for  the  willing  slave  of  sin — too  heavenly  for  him  who 
is  '  of  the  earth  earthy.' "  [Brown's  Discourses  of  our 
Lord.) 

"  Then  said  Jesus  unto  the  twelve,  "Will  ye  also  go  away  ? 
"  Then  Simon  Peter  answered  him,  Lord,  to  whom  shall 
"  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.  And  we 
"  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that  Christ,  the  Son  of 
"  the  living  God."  Vs.  67-69.  The  twelve  had  listened  to 
the  discourse  in  a  very  different  spirit  from  those  spoken 
of  in  V.  66  as  "  many  of  his  disciples."  They  had  already 
begun  in  earnest  ''to  labor  for  the  meat  which  endureth 
unto  everlasting  life," — they  had  come  to  him,  believed  in 
him,  and  their  conscious  hunger  and  thirst  had  been,  in  a 
measure,  satisfied.  They  had  listened  to  his  words  when 
"  he  spake  as  never  man  spake,'*  and  had  witnessed  the 
miracles  (semeia)  which  he  wrought, — and  so,  had  be- 
come fully  satisfied  that  he  was  their  long  promised  Mes- 
siah:— and  though  through  the  influence  of  their  Jewish 
prejudices,  they  comprehended  Init  imperfectly  the  doctrine 
he  had  just  taught;    and  so,  it  was  even  to  them,  in  a 


124  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

measure,  "  a  hard  saying,"  they  did  not  on  that  account 
reject  it.  They  did  not  say — "  This  is  a  hard  saying,  who 
can  hear  it," — but,  though  this  be  ''a  hard  saying,"  we 
will  hear  it. 

§  47.  Cardinal  Wiseman  on  "  the  established  and  conven- 
tional "  signification  of  "  eating  my  flesh." 

Whilst  Cardinal  Wiseman  agrees  with  us,  in  the  figura- 
tive interpretation  we  have  given  to  the  expressions  bread, 
and  bread  of  life  used  in  the  first  part  of  this  discourse,  he 
utterly  rejects  the  idea  of  a  like  figurative  use  of  the  ex- 
pressions eating  m,y  flesh  and  drinking  my  blood  used  in 
the  last  part :  and  contends  that  they  are  to  be  literally 
understood  of  the  very  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord. 

He  writes, — "If  the  phrase  to  eat  the  flesh  of  a  person, 
besides  its  literal  sense,  bore  among  the  people  whom  Jesus 
addressed  a  fixed,  proverbial,  unvarying,  metaphorical  sig- 
nification, then,  if  he  meant  to  use  it  metaphorically,  I  say, 
that  he  could  use  it  only  in  that  one  sense ;  and  hence,  our 
choice  can  only  lie  between  the  literal  sense  and  that  usual 
figure.  Now  I  do  assert  that,  whether  we  examine  (1)  the 
phraseology  of  the  Bible,  or  (2)  the  ordinary  language  of 
the  people  who  still  inhabit  the  same  country,  and  have 
inherited  the  same  ideas,  or  (3)  in  fine,  the  very  language 
in  which  our  Saviour  addressed  the  Jews,  we  shall  find  the 
expression  to  eat  the  flesh  of  a  person  signifying,  invariably, 
when  used  metaphorically,  to  attempt  to  do  him  some  se- 
rious injury,  principally  by  calumny  or  false  accusation. 
Such,  therefore,  was  the  only  figurative  meaning  which  the 
phrase  could  present  to  the  audience  at  Capernaum.  It  is 
so  in  the  Hebrew — '  while  the  wicked  ' — says  the  Psalmist 
— '  draw  near  against  me,  to  eat  my  flesh.'  (Ps.  xxvii.  2.) 
This  expression,  as  commentators  have  remarked,  describes 
the  violent  rage  of  his  enemies,  and  the  length  to  which 
they  were  ready  to  go  against  him.  Job  xix.  22  is  the 
same  phrase,  but  spoken  of  calumniators :  '  Why  do  you 
persecute  me,  and  are  not  satisfied  with  (eating)  my  flesh?' 
Again,  Micheas  iii.  3,  we  have,  '  Who  also  eat  the  flesh  of 
my  people.'     Ecclesiastes  iv.  5,  we  find  the  mischief  which 


Cardinal  Wiseman  on — '^Eating  my  Flesh."      125 

a  foolish  man  does  to  himself  described  by  the  same  figu- 
rative phrase :  '  The  fool  foldeth  his  arms  together,  and 
eateth  his  own  flesh.'  These  are  the  only  passages  in  which 
we  meet  this  expression  throughout  the  Old  Testament  in 
its  figurative  sense  ;  and  in  all,  the  idea  of  inflicting  griev- 
ous injury,  under  different  forms,  and  specifically  by  calum- 
ny, 'is  strongly  and  decidedly  marked.'"  {Lectures  on  tJce 
Eucharist,  pp.  79,  80.) 

In  the  estimation  of  the  Romanist,  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
primarily  a  sacrifice,  and  only  secondarily  a  sacrament,  in 
the  distinctive  sense  of  that  word.  The  Council  of  Trent 
declares  :  "  If  any  one  saith,  that  in  the  mass  a  true  and 
"  proper  sacrifice  is  not  offered  to  God ;  or  that  to  be 
"offered  is  nothing  else  but  that  Christ  is  given  us  to  eat; 
"let  him  be  anathema."  {Twenty-second  Session,  Canon  1.) 
They  also  believe  and  teach  that  this  sacrifice  had  its 
origin  in  the  Passover  :  "  For  having  celebrated  the  an- 
"  cient  Passover,  which  the  multitude  of  the  children  of 
"  Israel  immolated  in  memory  of  their  going  out  of  Egypt, 
"he  instituted  the  Tiew  Passover,  (to  wit),  himself  to  be 
"  immolated,  under  visible  signs,  by  the  Church  through 
"  (the  ministry  of)  priests."  [Tuoenty-second.  Session,  Ch. 
I.).  Now,  let  the  reader  recall  the  numerous  instances  in 
which  this  very  phrase  is  used,  in  the  original  account  of 
the  institution  of  the  Passover,  and  in  the  laws  respecting 
the  class  of  sacrifices  to  which  the  Passover  belonged, 
already  quoted  in  §  45 ;  and  does  it  not  seem  passing 
strange  that  a  Cardinal  of  the  Church  of  Pi.ome,  when 
seeking  for  passages  of  Scripture  to  determine  "  the  esta- 
blished and  conventional "  meaning  of  the  phrase,  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  should  utterly  ignore  these  numer- 
ous instances  in  which  this  very  phrase  occurs  in  connec- 
tion with  sacrifice,  and  having  a  sacrificial  sense,  and  go 
searching  through  all  the  other  Scriptures,  and  even  the 
Koran,  and  the  writings  of  later  Jewish  Rabbis,  (see  Lec- 
tures on  the  Eucharist,  pp.  82-98),  to  find  instances  of  its 
use  when  disconnected  with  sacrifices?  As  already  stated,  in 
his  discourse  at  Capernaum,  our  Lord  uses  the  phrase,  eat 
my  flesh,  for  the  very  purpose  of  conveying  to  his  hearers 
the  idea,  that  his  death  was  to  be  a  sacrificial  death. 


126  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

§  48.   Cardinal  Wiseman  on  the  Jews  Cavils. 

"  The  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will 
give  for  the  life  of  the  world.  The  Jews  therefore  strove 
among  themselves,  saying,  How  can  this  man  give  us  his 
flesh  to  eat?  .  .  .  Many,  therefore,  of  his  disciples,  when 
they  heard  this,  said,  This  is  a  hard  saying ;  who  can  hear 
it?  ...  .  From  that  time  many  of  his  disciples  went 
back,  and  walked  no  more  with  him."  (Vs.  61,  52,  60,  66.) 
From  this  record,  Cardinal  Wiseman  concludes  that  the 
Jews  understood  our  Lord  to  speak  of  a  hteral  eating  of 
his  flesh,  and  this,  for  two  reasons  : 

(1.)  "  If  they  had  understood,  by  eating  his  flesh,  the 
same  as  having  him,  the  bread  of  life, — this  having  been 
already  explained  by  himself,  of  believing  in  him, — they 
could  not  ask,  in  what  manner  this  manducation  was  to 
take  place.  .  .  .  And  (2.)  We  must  conclude  that  the 
Jews  understood  the  transition  to  be  to  the  doctrine  liter- 
ally expressed,  of  feeding  upon  Christ;  for  their  objection 
supposes  him  to  be  teaching  a  doctrine  impossible  to  bo 
practiced  : — '  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ? ' 
Now,  no  other  but  the  literal  signification  could  possibly 
give  rise  to  this  objection?"  {Lectures  on  the  Eucharist, 
p.  109.)  And  then,  laying  it  down  as  a  settled  principle, 
in  support  of  which  he  cites  a.  number  of  instances  of  such 
a  course :  "  That  whenever  our  Lord's  hearers  found  difii- 
culties,  or  raised  objections  to  his  words,  from  taking  them 
in  their  literal  sense,  while  he  intencled  them  to  be  taken 
figuratively,  his  constant  practice  was  to  explain  them 
instantly,  in  a  figurative  manner,  even  though  no  great 
error  could  result  from  their  being  misunderstood."  {Lec- 
tures on  the  Eucharist,  p.  111.)  He  draws  the  conclusion, 
as  our  Lord  gave  the  Jews  no  explanation  of  his  words, 
even  when  they  were  so  much  oiFended  thereby,  as  to  "go 
back  and  walk  no  more  with  him,"  he  must  have  intended 
them  to  be  understood  literally. 

To  these  objections  to  our  interpretation  of  our  Lord's 
words,  we  reply : 

1.  The  Jews'  words  : — "  How  can  this  man  give  us  his 
flesh  to  eat?"  are  not  of  the  nature  of  an  honest  objection, 


Cardinal  Wiseman  on  the  Jews  Cavils.  127 

candidly  stated ;  Lut  of  a  disingenuous  cavil ;  and  were 
uttered  in  the  same  spirit  with  their  previous  cavils, — 
"  What  sign  shewest  thou  then,  that  we  may  see  and 
believe  thee," — and,  "How  is  it  then  that  ho  saith,  I  came 
down  from  heaven  ?"  They  got  a  glimpse  of  the  truth  he 
intended  to  teach,  but  that  truth  was  so  utterly  at  va- 
riance with  their  long-cherished  prejudices,  and  so  hum- 
bling to  their  pride,  that  they  rejected  it : — and  then, 
just  as  men  in  such  circumstances  always  do,  just  as  the 
Jews  did  on  many  other  occasions,  they  began  cavilling  at 
the  doctrine. 

Had  the  Jews  understood  our  Lord's  words  literally, 
they  would  have  regarded  his  doctrine  with  horror ;  and 
expressed  their  objection  in  very  different  terms  from 
those  they  actually  use.  The  Cardinal  does  not  express 
himself  too  strongly  when  he  writes : — "  The  ideas  of 
drinking  blood  and  eating  human  flesh  presented  some- 
thing frightful  to  the  Jews.  .  .  .  Drinking  blood,  even 
though  of  a  clean  animal,  was,  in  the  Jew's  idea,  a  weighty 
transgression  of  a  divine  precept,  given  originally  to 
Noah,  and  frequently  repeated  in  the  law  of  Moses.  In- 
deed the  most  awful  form  of  threatening  ever  employed 
by  God,  is  uttered  against  those  who  eat  blood  : — '  If  any 
man  whosoever  of  the  house  of  Israel,  and  of  the  strangers 
that  sojourn  among  them,  eat  blood,  I  will  set  my  face 
against  his  soul,  and  will  cut  him  off  from  among  his  people.' 
(Lev.  xvii.  10.)  ....  The  drinking  of  blood,  and,  more 
especially,  the  feeding  upon  human  flesh  and  blood,  is 
always  mentioned  in  Scripture  as  the  last  and  most  dread- 
ful curse  which  the  Almighty  could  possibly  inflict  upon 
his  enemies.  .  .  .  '  Thou  hast  given  them  blood  to  drink, 
for  they  have  deserved  it.'  (Rev.  xvi.  6.)  '  I  will  feed  them 
that  oppress  thee,  with  their  own  flesh,  and  they  shall  be 
drunk  with  their  own  blood.'  (Isaiah  xlix.  26.)  That  is, 
w^ith  the  flesh,  and  blood  of  one  another.  ...  In  fine, 
Jeremiah  mentions,  as  a  plague  which  should  astonish  all 
men,  that  the  citizens  should  be  obliged  to  '  eat  every  man 
the  flesh  of  his  friend.'  (Jor.  xix.  8,  9.)"  Lectures  07i  the 
Eucharist,  pp.  102-104.)  On  this  same  subject  the  Cate- 
chism of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  164,  declares  :— "  To  eat 


128  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Siqrper. 

"  human  flesh,  or  to  drink  human  blood,  is  most  revolting 
"  to  human  nature,  and,  therefore,  has  God  in  his  infinite 
"  wisdom,  established  the  administration  of  the  body  and 
"  blood  of  Christ,  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  the 
"  ordinary  and  agreeable  food  of  man."  Now  let  the 
reader  remember,  that  whatever  might  be  true  afterwards, 
at  the  time  our  Lord  spake  these  words  to  the  Jews,  this 
administration  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine  had  not  been  established;  that  if 
they  understood  his  words  literally,  they  must  have  un- 
derstood him  to  enjoin  the  cannibal  act  in  all  its  "  frightful 
horrors ;" — and  can  we  believe  that  the  only  objection  of 
the  Jew  would  have  found  expression  in  the  mild  words : 
"  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  .  .  .  This  is 
a  hard  saying," — would  they  not  rather  have  cried  out,  as 
they  did  on  another  occasion,  under  less  provocation : — 
"  He  hath  a  devil,  and  is  mad,"  ..."  and  taken  up  stones 
to  stone  him."  {Jno.  x.  20,  31.) 

2.  It  is  true,  that  on  many  occasions,  "when  our  Lord's 
hearers  found  difiiculties,  or  raised  objections  to  his  words, 
from  taking  them  in  their  literal  sense,  while  he  intended 
them  to  be  taken  figuratively,  he  at  once  explained  his 
language  and  corrected  their  mistake : — but  it  is  not  true, 
as  the  Cardinal  affirms,  that  this  was  his  constant  practice ; 
that  he  always  did  it. 

As  an  instance  of  his  pursuing  a  different  course,  let  the 
reader  turn  to  Jno.  ii.  18-21.  "Then  answered  the  Jews 
and  said  unto  him,  What  sign  shewest  thou  unto  us,  seeing 
thou  doest  these  things  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
them.  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it 
up.  Then  said  the  Jews,  Forty  and  six  years  was  this 
temple  in  building,  and  wilt  thou  raise  it  up  in  three  days? 
But  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body."  On  this  occasion 
the  Jews  interpreted  our  Lord's  words  literally,  and  so 
misunderstood  them,  and  yet  he  gave  them  no  explanation  ; 
and  this,  although  he  must  have  foreknown  that  they 
would  afterwards  be  used  against  him  at  his  trial  before 
the  Sanhedrim.  "  At  last  came  two  false  witnesses,  and 
said,  This  fellow  said,  I  am  able  to  destroy  the  temple 
of  God,  and  to  build  it  in  three  days."  {Matt.  xxvi.  61.) 


Cardinal  Wiseman  on  the  Jews'  Cavils.  129 

Why  did  our  Lord  pursue  so  different  a  course  in  differ- 
ent Ciises ;  sometimes  explaining  liis  words ;  at  other  times 
leaving  them  without  ex})hxnation,  though  evidently  misin- 
terpreted? His  disciples  once  asked  this  very  question,  in 
substance, — "  Why  speakest  thou  unto  them  in  parables? 
He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Because  it  is  given  unto 
you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but 
to  them  it  is  not  given.  For  whosoever  hath,  to  him  shall 
be  given,  and  he  shall  have  more  abundance;  but  whoso- 
ever hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even^that  he 
hath.  Therefore  speak  I  to  them  in  parables;  because  they 
seeing,  see  not;  and  hearing,  they  hear  not,  neither  do  they 
understand."  (Matt.  xiii.  10-13.)  "  This  is  a  principle  of 
great  importance,  and  like  other  weighty  sayings,  appears 
to  have  been  uttered  by  our  Lord  on  more  than  one  occa- 
sion, and  in  different  connections.  As  a  great  ethical  prin- 
ciple, we  see  it  in  operation  everywhere,  under  the  general 
law  of  habit ;  in  virtue  of  which  moral  principles  become 
stronger  through  exercise,  while  by  disuse,  or  the  exercise 
of  their  contraries,  they  wax  weaker,  and  at  length  expire. 
Here,  however,  it  is  viewed  as  a  divine  ordination,  as  a 
judicial  retribution  in  continual  operation  under  the  divine 
administration.  Therefore  speak  I  unto  them  in  parahles 
— which  our  Lord,  be  it  observed,  did  not  begin  to  do  till 
his  miracles  were  malignantly  ascribed  to  Satan,  because 
they  seeing,  see  not.  They  saw,  for  the  light  shone  on  them 
as  never  light  shone  before ;  but  they  saw  not,  for  they 
closed  their  eyes.  And  hearing,  they  hear  not ;  neither  do 
they  understand.  They  heard,  for  he  taught  them  who 
spake  as  never  man  spake;  but  they  heard  not,  for  they 
took  nothing  in,  apprehending  not  the  soul-penetrating,  life- 
giving  words  addressed  to  them."   [Brown's  Com,,  m  loc.) 

The  principle  here  stated,  applied  to  the  case  under  con- 
sideration, fully  explains  our  Lord's  conduct  toward  these 
cavilling  Jews.  Their  case  was  just  that  described  in  his 
words, — "  they  seeing,  see  not,  and  hearing,  they  hear  not, 
neither  do  they  understand ;  " — and  he  speaks  to  them  in 
parables  ("  dark  sayings,"  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2,)  giving  them  no 
other  explanation  than  that  against  which  they  have  wil- 
fully closed  their  eyes.  The  fact,  that  when  he  saw  that 
6* 


130  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sv.pper. 

the  Jews  put  a  literal  meaning  on  his  words,  he  did  not 
correct  them,  in  this  instance,  no  more  proves  that  he  in- 
tended those  words  to  be  understood  literally,  than  his 
pursuing  the  same  course,  when  they  put  a  similar  mean- 
ing on  his  words — "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days 
I  will  raise  it  up,"  proves  that  those  words  are  to  be  under- 
stood literally.  The  cases  are  perfectly  parallel ;  and  are 
both  covered  by  the  general  principle  he  hays  down  in  his 
reply  to  the  disciples'  question,  "Why  speakest  thou  unto 
them  in  parables?  " 

But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  with  respect  to  his  disciples? 
— for  they  seem  also  to  have  been  perplexed  by  his  words ; 
to  have  but  partially  understood  them.  Their  case,  in  this 
instance,  was  doubtless  just  that  described  in  the  other ; 
"When,  therefore,  he  was  risen  from  the  dead,  his  disciples 
remembered  that  he  had  said  this  unto  them ;  and  they 
believed  the  Scriptures,  and  the  word  which  Jesus  had 
said."  (Jno.  ii.  22.)  Even  as  he  sat  with  them  at  the  last 
supper  he  said, — "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you, 
but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now."  (Jno.  xvi.  12.)  Having 
fixed  the  truth  in  their  memories  by  the  use  of  a  very 
striking  figure,  he  leaves  it  to  be  fully  explained  by  subse- 
quent events,  and  the  after  teaching  of  the  Spirit. 

§  49.  Is  John  vi.  51-58  a  'promise  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

Ptomish  writers  generally  represent  our  Lord's  discourse 
at  Capernaum,  especially  the  latter  portion  of  it,  as  a 
promise  or  prediction  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Archbishop  Gibbons  writes : — "  I  shall  select  three 
classes  of  arguments  from  the  New  Testament  which  satis- 
factorily demonstrate  the  Keal  Presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Blessed  Sacrament.  The  first  of  these  texts  speak  of  the 
promise  of  the  eucharist;  the  second  of  its  institution,  and 
the  third  of  its  use  among  the  faithful.  To  begin  with  the 
words  of  proinise ;" — and  then  follows  a  brief,  running  com- 
mentary on  Jno.  vi.  51-58.  [Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p.  328.) 

Dr.  Milner  writes — "  He  explained  and  promised  this 
divine  mystery,  near  one  of  the  Paschs,  (Jno.  vi.  4,)  pre- 
vious to   his  institution  of  it.     He  then  multiplied  five 


Is  JoJiii  vi.  51-58  a  Promise  of  the  Lord's  Siq-)j)cr  ?   131 

loavos  and  two  fishes,  so  as  to  afford  a  sa})erabundant  meal 
to  five  thousand  men,  besides  women  and  children,  which 
was  an  evident  sign  of  the  future  multipHcation  of  his  own 
body  on  the  several  altars  of  the  world ;  after  which  he 
took  occasion  to  speak  of  this  mystery,  by  saying,  '  I  am 
the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven.  If  any 
man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live  forever :  and  the  bread 
that  I  will  give,  is  my  flesh  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of 
the  world.'  "  Jno.  vi.  51.  {End  of  Controversy,  pp.  227,  8.) 

Cardinal  Wiseman  devotes  four  lectures, —  one-half  of 
his  whole  work, — to  an  examination  of  the  sixth  chapter 
of  John; — and  at  the  commencement  of  Lect.  v.,  where 
he  takes  up  "the  words  of  institution,"  he  writes: — "Wo 
have  seen,  at  some  length,  the  Blessed  Eucharist  promised 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John ;  and  the  terms  of  this 
promise  demonstrate  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  ileal 
rresence."  {Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  p.  176.) 

Had  the  question  proposed  been — not,  Is  Jno.  vi. 
51-58,  a  promise  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  that  its  lan- 
guage may  be  appealed  to  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the 
nature  of  that  ordinance; — bat — Is  the  subject  here 
dwelt  upon,  the  same  with  that  set  forth  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  ? — Is  the  spiritual  verity  here  brought  to  our 
attention  the  same  with  that  which  underlies  that  ordi- 
nance?— the  answer  must  have  been  in  the  affirmative. 
In  the  words  of  Da  Costa,  already  quoted,  (§1,)  "The 
whole  of  that  discourse  delivered  by  Jesus,  in  which  ho 
declares  that  he  himself  is  '  the  bread  of  life,'  and  that 
'  whosoever  eateth  his  flesh  and  drinketh  his  blood,  hath 
eternal  life,'  is  it  not  in  oral  words  what  the  Lord's  Supper 
represents,  and  gives  to  us  in  visible  action  ?  "  And  we 
are  now  prepared  to  go  a  step  further,  and  say,  that  the 
figure  embodied  in  the  words  of  the  discourse,  and  in  the 
symbolism  of  the  ordinance,  has  its  fountain  head  in  the 
sacrificial  worship  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 
The  two,  i.  e.,  the  discourse  and  the  ordinance,  are  thus 
strikingly  alike, — not  because  one  is  a  promise,  and  the 
other  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise, — but  because,  both 
alike  are  intended  to  set  forth  the  one  source  of  true 
spiritual  life  for  lost  men,  the  sacrificial,  atoning  death  of 


132  The  DoGtrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

our  Lord ;  and  both  alike  do  it  in  a  form  borrowed  from 
the  worship  of  the  Old  Testament  Church. 

That  this  discourse  was  not  intended  as  a  promise  and 
exposition  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  clear,  from  the  follow- 
ing considerations : — 

(1)  It  was  delivered  a  year,  at  the  least,  before  that  ordi- 
nance was  instituted,  as  is  evident  from  John's  statement 
— "  the  passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews,  was  nigh ;  "  (vi.  4) — 
certainly,  not  the  passover  at  which  our  Lord  suffered. 
Some  time  after  the  delivery  of  this  discourse — as  is  evident 
from  the  context — the  occurrence  took  place  recorded  by 
Matthew  in  the  words : — "  From  that  time  forth  began 
Jesus  to  shew  unto  his  disciples,  how  that  he  must  go  unto 
Jerusalem,  and  suifer  many  things  of  the  elders  and  chief 
priests  and  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the 
third  day.  Then  Peter  took  him,  and  began  to  rebuke  him, 
saying.  Be  it  far  from  thee,  Lord :  this  shall  not  be  unto 
thee.  But  he  turned  and  said  unto  Peter,  Get  thee  behind 
me,  Satan  :  thou  art  an  offence  unto  me  :  for  thou  savorest 
not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but  those  that  be  of  men." 
(Matt.  xvi.  21-23.)  It  is  true,  that  Jesus  had  foretold  his 
death  at  an  early  period  in  his  public  ministry,  in  his 
declaration — "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I 
will  raise  it  up,"  (Jno.  ii.  19,)  but  this  was  in  such  terms 
that  it  was  only  after  his  resurrection  that  his  disciples 
distinctly  understood  them.  To  suppose,  that  in  this  dis- 
course, he  foretold  that  death  as  distinctly  as  is  implied  in 
understanding  it  as  an  "  explanation  and  promise  "  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  is  irreconcilable  with  Matthew's  words, 
quoted  above,  "  Then  began  Jesus  to  shew  unto  his  dis- 
ciples, how  that  ...  he  must  be  killed,"  and  with  Peter's 
conduct  in  "  rebuking  him ;"  Peter,  who  at  the  close  of 
the  discourse  at  Capernaum,  had  said — "  Lord,  to  whom 
shall  we  go  ?  thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.  And  we 
believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God."  (Jno.  vi.  68,  69.) 

(2)  The  circumstances  in  which  this  discourse  was  de- 
livered are  not  such  as  our  Lord  would  have  chosen,  judg- 
ing from  his  conduct  on  other  occasions,  for  making  the 
first  announcement  of  one  of  the  mysteries  of  the  Christian 


Is  John  vi.  5i-5S  a  Promise  of  the  Lord's  Supper?    133 

faith.  When  he  did  institute  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper, 
it  was  in  an  upper  chamber,  at  night,  and  with  none  but 
"  the  twelve  "  present ; — and  this  was  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  principle  laid  down  in  his  words — "  It  is  given 
unto  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
but  to  them" — i.  e.,  the  multitudes  who  gathered 
around  him  to  witness  his  miracles  and  to  listen  to  his 
words — "  it  is  not  given."  (Matt.  xiii.  11.)  Applying  this 
principle  to  the  case  before  us,  we  say, — seldom,  if  ever, 
did  our  Lord  address  an  audience  less  suited  to  receive  the 
first  announcement  of  the  mystery  of  the  Supper  than  the 
worldly-minded,  cavilling  multitude  that  filled  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum. 

(3)  In  this  discourse,  our  Lord  declares — "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son 
of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you. 
Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath 
eternal  life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day,"  (Jno. 
vi.  53,  54,)  thus  emphatically  declaring  that  what  is  set 
forth  as  "  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,"  is  in- 
dispensably necessary  to  salvation ; — that  man  cannot  be 
saved  without  it.  Put  the  Romish  interpretation  upon 
these  words,  and  they  teach  that  the  Eucharist  is  in- 
dispensably necessary  to  salvation.  Now,  the  Council  of 
Trent,  whilst  it  teaches  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, teaches  just  the  reverse,  in  certain  cases,  respecting 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Its  language  is, — "  Little  children, 
"  who  have  not  attained  to  the  use  of  reason,  are  not  by 
"  any  necessity  obliged  to  the  sacramental  communion  of 
"the  Eucharist:  forasmuch  as,  having  been  regenerated 
"  by  the  laver  of  baptism,  and  being  incorporated  with 
"Christ,  they  cannot,  at  that  age,  lose  the  grace  which 
"  they  have  already  acquired  of  being  the  sons  of  God." 
{Council  of  Trent,  Twenty-first  Session,  Ch.  iv.)  But, 
understand  these  expressions  as  we  have  explained  them, 
and  our  Lord's  words  are  literally  "true.  Without  the  per- 
sonal appropriation  of  the  atonement  made  by  Christ's  sac- 
rificial death, — by  the  sinner's  own  voluntary  act,  if  he  has 
reached  years  of  discretion,  or  by  the  sovereign  act  of  Christ, 
if  he  be  an  infant,  there  is  no  salvation  for  man  the  sinner. 


134  Tlte  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 


CHAPTER    III. 
The  Words  of  Institution. 

g  50.  The  Words  of  Institution,  g  51.  How  would  the  Apostles  understand  the 
Words  of  Institution?  §52.  Does  this  method  of  interpretation  invalidate 
the  Scripture  testimony  to  the  Trinity  ?  I  53.  The  elements  called  bread 
and  wine  after  consecration. 

§  50.   The  Words  of  Institution. 

"This  is  my  body,  .  .  .  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New 
Testament  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins."  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  28. 

"  This  is  my  body,  .  .  .  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many."  Mark  xiv.  22,  24. 

'' This  15  my  body  which  is  given  for  you;  .  .  .  This 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for 
you."  Luke  xxii,  19,  20, 

"This  is  my  body  which  is  broken  for  you;  .  .  .  This 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood."  1  Cor.  xx.  24,  25. 

On  the  expression  "this  is  my  body,"  Dr.  C.  Hodge  re- 
marks— "Probably  the  history  of  the  world  does  not 
furnish  a  parallel  to  the  controversies  occasioned  by  these 
simple  words.  The  ordinary  and  natural  interpretation  of 
them  is,  that  the  pronoun  this  refers  to  the  bread.  This  bread 
which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  which  I  give  to  you,  is  my 
body!  That  is,  is  the  symbol  of  my  body."  {Commentary 
on  First  Corinthians,  in  loe.) 

Cardinal  Wiseman  writes — "We  believe  that  the  body 
and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  are  truly  and  really  present  in 
the  adorable  Eucharist,  because,  taking  the  bread  and 
wine,  he  who  was  Omnipotent,  said,  '  This  is  my  body,  this 
is  my  blood.'  Here  is  our  argument;  and  what  can  we 
advance,    to    prove    a    strict    accordance    between     our 


The  Worth  of  Institution.  135 

doctrine,  and  that  of  onr  Saviour,  stronger  and  clearer, 
than  the  bare  enunciation  of  our  dofjjma  beside  the  words 
which  he  used  in  delivering  it.  'This  is  my  body,' says 
our  Lord ; '  I  believe  it  to  be  thy  body,  replies  the  Catho- 
lic. 'This  is  my  blood,'  repeats  our  Redeemer;  'I  believe 
it  to  be  the  figure  of  thy  blood,'  rejoins  the  Protestant. 
Whose  speech  is  here  Yea,  Yea?  Who  saith  Amen  to 
the  teachings  of  Christ?  Is  it  the  Catholic  or  the  Protes- 
tant?" {Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  pp.  182,  3.) 

That  the  substantive  verb  "  to  he"  in  its  different  moods 
and  tenses  is  frequently  used  in  Scripture,  as  in  common 
life,  in  "a  figurative  sense,"  i.  e.,  in  the  sense oi represents, 
is  the  symbol  of,  is  admitted  by  all  parties.  Cardinal 
Wiseman  writes — "  The  question  in  dispute  is  whether  is 
in  our  case  is  to  be  taken  figuratively,  or  may  be  taken 
figuratively,  in  the  words  of  institution ;  and  our  adver- 
saries bring  a  number  of  passages  in  which  it  is  so  taken. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  I  can  bring  them  some  thousands 
of  passages  where  the  verb  'to  be  '  is  taken  literally.  If, 
therefore,  they  choose  to  take  those  passages  as  parallel, 
and  reject  mine,  they  must  show  some  peculiarity  in  the 
words  in  question,  which  detach  them  from  the  great  mass 
of  passages  where  '  to  be '  occurs,  and  associate  them  with 
the  few,  where  it  bears  a  certain  peculiar  sense.  Yet  this 
they  have  never  attempted  to  do."  {Lectures  on  the  Eucha- 
rist, p.  193.) 

The  attempt  which  the  Cardinal  says  has  never  been 
made, — though  not  assenting  to  the  truth  of  this  state- 
ment,— is  just  the  attempt  to  which  we  would  now  ask  the 
reader's  attention.  The  cases  in  which  "to  be"  is,  in 
Scripture,  clearly  used  in  "  a  figurative  sense,"  i.  e.,  to 
mean,  represents,  is  the  symbol  of,  are  the  following. 

1.  In  the  interpretation  of  prophetic  visions ; — as  in 
Joseph's  interpretation  of  the  vision  of  Pharaoh, — "  The 
seven  good  kine  are  seven  years;  and  the  seven  good  ears 
are  seven  years :  the  dream  is  one.  And  the  seven  thin 
and  ill-favored  kine  that  came  up  after  them  are  seven 
years;  and  the  seven  empty  ears  blasted  with  the  east 
wind  shall  be  seven  years  of  famine."  (Gen.  xli.  26,  27.) 
And  in  Daniel's  interpretation  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  vision 


136  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Suj'iper. 

—"  Thou  art  tliis  head  of  gold."  (Dan.  ii.  38.)  And  Lis 
subsequent  interpretation  of  his  own  vision  of  the  "  four 
beasts."  "And  the  ten  horns  out  of  this  kingdom  are  ten 
kings  that  shall  rise."  (Dan.  vii.  24.) 

2.  In  the  interpretation  of  parables;  as  in  our  Lord's 
interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the  Tares  in  the  Field ; — 
"  The  field  is  the  world ;  the  good  seed  are  the  children  of 
the  kingdom;  but  the  tares  are  the  children  of  the  wicked 
one.  The  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil ;  the  harvest 
is  the  end  of  the  world;  and  the  reapers  are  the  angels," 
(Matt.  xiii.  38,  39.) 

3.  In  the  interpretation  of  allegories ;  as  in  Paul's  epistle 
to  the  Galatians — "Abraham  had  two  sons;  the  one  by  a 
bond-maid,  the  other  by  a  free-woman.  But  he  who  was 
of  the  bond-woman  was  born  after  the  flesh ;  but  he  of  the 
free-woman  was  by  promise.  Which  things  are  an  allegory  : 
for  these  are  the  two  covenants ;  the  one  from  the  Mount 
Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is  Agar."  (Gal. 
iv.  22-24.) 

4.  When  used  of  types  and  symbolic  acts;  as — "For 
they  all  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them; 
and  that  rock  was  Christ."  (1  Cor.  x.  4.)     "Thussaith  the 

"Lord  God,  this  is  Jerusalem."  (Ezek.  v.  5,)  t.  e.  "The 
Prophet's  hair,  a  third  part  of  which,  by  God's  direction, 
he  had  "  burned  in  the  fire,"  another  third  part,  he  had 
"  smitten  about  with  a  knife,"  and  the  remaining  third  he 
had  "scattered  in  the  wind." 

These  are  not  all  the  cases  in  which  "to  be"  is  used  in 
a  figurative  sense;  but  in  these  four,  Cardinal  Wiseman 
admits  that  it  is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  represents. 
He  writes, — "  If  I  desire  to  illustrate  the  phrase.  Gen.  xli. 
26,  'the  seven  good  kine  are  seven  years,'  by  Matt.  xiii. 
38,  '  the  field  is  the  world,'  or  both  of  them  by  Gal.  iv.  24, 
'  for  these  are  the  two  covenants',  I  am  fully  justified  in 
doing  so,  and  considering  the  passages  as  perfectly  parallel ; 
because  the  context  in  all  three  demonstrates  to  me  that 
the  same  thing  exists  in  all ;  namely,  the  explanation  of  a 
symbolical  instruction,  in  one  instance  a  vision,  in  another 
a  parable,  in  the  third  an  allegory.  But  then  it  follows, 
likewise,  that  in  order  to  thrust  the  words  'this  is  my 


The  Words  of  Iiistiiidion,  137 

body'  into  the  same  category,  and  treat  them  as  parallel, 
we  must  show  them  also  to  contain  the  same  thing  (which 
every  single  instance  in  the  first  class  of  texts  does  show) 
— the  explanation  of  a  symbolical  instruction.  Till  this  is 
done,  there  is  no  parallelism  established."  {Lectures  on  the 
Eucharist,  pp.  197,  8.) 

The  Lord's  Supper,  as  all  agree,  is  a  Sacrament ;  and 
all  sacraments,  among  other  uses,  are  intended  to  teach 
divine  truth  by  symbol.  The  Council  of  Trent  declares: — 
"  The  most  holy  Eucharist  has  indeed  this  in  common  with 
"  the  rest  of  the  sacraments,  that  it  is  a  symbol  of  a  sacred 
"  thing."  {XIII.  Session,  Ch.  Hi) 

Of  the  symbolic  teaching  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  says  : — "  Upon  this 
"  subject — the  pastor  will  teach  .  .  .  that  water  is  best 
"  adapted  to  signify  the  effect  of  baptism.  It  washes  away 
"  uncleanness,  and  is,  therefore,  strikingly  illustrative  of 
"  the  virtue  and  efficacy  of  baptism,  which  washes  away 
"  the  stains  of  sin.  We  may  also  add  that,  like  water 
"  which  cools  the  body,  baptism  in  a  great  measure  extin- 
"guishes  the  fire  of  concupiscence  in  the  soul."  (P.  115.) 
"  When  salt  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  person  to  bo 
"  baptized,  it  evidently  imports,  that  by  the  doctrine  of 
"  faith,  and  the  gift  of  grace,  he  shall  be  delivered  from 
*'  the  corruption  of  sin,  shall  experience  a  relish  for  good 
"  works,  and  shall  be  nurtured  with  the  food  of  divine 
"wisdom.  Again,  his  forehead,  eyes,  breast,  shoulders 
"  and  ears,  are  signed  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  to  de- 
"  clare,  that  by  the  mystery  of  baptism,  the  senses  of  the 
"  person  baptized  are  opened  and  strengthened,  to  enable 
"  him  to  receive  God,  and  to  understand  and  observe  his 
"  commandments.  His  nostrils  and  ears  are  next  touched 
"  with  spittle,  and  he  is  then  immediately  admitted  to  the 
"  baptismal  font :  by  this  ceremony  we  understand  that, 
"  as  sight  was  given  to  the  blind  man,  mentioned  in  the 
"  Gospel,  whom  the  Lord,  having  spread  clay  on  his  eyes, 
"  commanded  to  wash  them  in  the  water  of  Siloe ;  so  by 
"  the  efficacy  of  holy  baptism,  a  light  is  let  in  on  the  mind, 
"which  enables  it  to  discern  heavenly  truths."  {Pp. 
134,  5.)     It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  quotations,  from 


138  The  Djctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

the  standards  of  tlie  Church  of  Rome,  of  a  similar  charac- 
ter, respecting  the  other  sacraments.  Surely  a  Cardinal 
of  the  Church  of  Borne,  a  church  with  a  ceremonial  more 
complicated  and  full  of  symbolism  than  that  of  the  ancient 
Jews,  should  be  the  last  person  on  earth  to  question,  or 
ever  forget  the  fact,  that  in  the  sacraments  God  teaches 
his  people  by  symbol. 

As  our  Lord  sat  there,  at  table,  in  that  upper  chamber 
in  Jerusalem,  with  his  disciples  gathered  around  him,  he 
had,  in  the  bread  broken  and  eaten,  and  in  the  wine 
poured  out  and  drunk  by  them,  expressive  symbols.  And 
when  he  says  :  "  This  is  my  body,  broken  for  you,"  he  is 
explaining  the  symbol  of  the  broken  bread  :  and  when  he 
says  further,  "  this  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood 
which  is  shed  for  you,"  he  is  explaining  the  symbol  of  the 
poured-out  wine  which  he  calls  upon  them  to  drink.  But 
for  these  words  of  explanation,  they  would  never  have 
known,  that  this  bread  and  wine  differed,  at  all,  from  that 
which  they  had  just  partaken  of  at  the  paschal  supper. 
The  fact  then,  that  these  words  are  used  by  our  Lord  in 
"  explanation  of  a  symbolic  instruction,"  places  them  in 


the  same  category  with  the  passages — ''the  seven 
kine  are  seven  years;" — "  the  field  is  the  world;" — "for 
these  are  the  two  covenants,"  passages  in  which  Cardinal 
Wiseman  admits,  that,  "  to  he"  is  used  in  the  sense  of  I'epre- 
sents  ;  and  we  have  "  shown  a  peculiarity  in  the  use  of  the 
words  in  question,which  detaches  them  from  the  great  mass 
of  passages  where  "  to  be,  occurs,  and  associated  them  with 
the  few,  where  it  bears  a  certain  peculiar  sense." 

But  we  stop  not  here.  We  affirm  that  this  use  of  "  to 
be  "  in  the  sense  of  "  represents,"  is  a  common  Scripture 
usage  when  speaking  of  the  sacraments.  Bespecting  the 
Old  Testament  sacrament  of  circumcision  the  language  of 
Scripture  is  :  "  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your 
foreskin  ;  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt 
me  and  you.  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  cir- 
cumcised among  you,  every  man  child  in  your  genera- 
tions; he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with 
money  of  any  stranger  that  is  not  of  thy  seed ;  he  that  is 
born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy  money, 


The  Words  of  Institution.  139 

must  needs  be  circumcised  ;  aud  my  covenant  liludl  he.  in 
your  flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant,"  (Gen.  xvii. 
11-13)  In  what  sense  could  God  say,  "my  covenant 
nhall  be  in  your  flesh  ?"  A  covenant  is  a  solemn  agree- 
ment between  two  parties,  mutually  bound  thereby  to 
certain  things.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  a 
mutual  agreement  cannot  be  literally  in  a  man's  flesh. 
God's  word  explains  itself  here.  Just  above,  it  is  said, 
that  circumcision,  which  was  literally  in  the  flesh  of  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,"  "  should  be  a  token  of  the  covenant ;" 
i.  e.,  should  represent,  make  evident  so  as  constantly  to 
keep  in  memory  that  covenant. 

In  the  case  of  the  other  Old  Testament  rite,  the  sacra- 
mental character  of  which  is  admitted  by  all,  viz.,  the 
Passover,  similar  language  is  used.  "  And  thus  shall  ye 
eat  it;  {i.e.,  the  paschal  lamb,  as  is  evident  from  the  verse 
preceding),  with  your  loins  girded,  your  shoes  on  your 
feet,  and  your  staff  in  your  hand ;  and  ye  shall  eat  it  in 
haste ;  it  is  the  Lord's  passover.  For  I  will  pass  through 
the  land  of  Egypt  this  night,  and  will  smite  all  the  first- 
born in  the  land  of  Egypt;  both  man  and  beast;  and 
against  all  the  gods  of  Egypt  I  will  execute  judgment;  I 
am  the  Lord.  And  the  blood  shall  be  to  you  for  a  token 
upon  the  houses  -vvliere  you  are :  and  when  I  see  the 
blood,  I  will  pass  over  you,  and  the  plague  shall  not  bo 
upon  you  to  destroy  jon,  when  I  smite  the  land  of  Egypt." 
(Ex.  xii.  11-13.)  The  roasted  lamb  could  not  be,  literally, 
the  passover,  that  is,  God's  merciful  sparing  of  Israel, 
when  he  slew  the  first-born  of  Egypt.  In  the  declaration, 
"it  is  the  Lord's  passover,"  the  words  '^  it  is,"  must  be 
understood  "figuratively; '  i.  e.,  it  is  a  token,  or  memorial 
of  the  passover.  Occurring,  as  the  expression  does,  in  a 
figurative  sense  in  the  Scripture  account  of  the  institution 
of  the  "  aiieiznt  Passover,''  most  naturally  would  it  enter, 
in  the  same  sense,  in  our  Lord's  institution  of  the  "  new 
Passover,''  as  the  Council  of  Trent  (see  Twenty-second 
Session,  Ch.  I.)  styles  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper.  In- 
deed, if  we  mistake  not,  it  is  just  in  this  fact  we  have  the 
true  explanation  of  our  Lord's  use  of  this  form  of  expres- 
sion in  the  words  of  institution. 


140  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

§  51.  How  would  the  Apostles  understand  the  words  of 
institution  ? 

"  If  we  wish  to  understand  an  author,  for  instance,  the 
New  Testament,  we  must  transport  ourselves  from  our 
age  and  country,  and  place  ourselves  in  the  position  of 
those  whom  our  Saviour  or  his  disciples  addressed.  We 
must  understand  each  phrase  just  as  they  must  have  done; 
we  must  invest  ourselves  with  their  knowledge,  their  feel- 
ings, habits,  opinions,  if  we  wish  to  understand  the  dis- 
courses addressed  primarily  and  immediately  to  them.  .  .  . 
The  inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  words  and  phrases  at  any 
given  period,  and  also  into  the  local  and  personal  circum- 
stances which  modify  them,  is  an  inquiry  into  a  matter  of 
fact,  and  consequently  partakes,  especially  as  to  the  latter 
research,  of  an  historical  character."  {Lectures  on  the 
Eucharist,  pp.  41,  39,  40.) 

Cardinal  Wiseman,  in  the  passages  quoted  above,  has 
stated  a  rule  of  interpretation  in  very  strong  terms,  we 
think ;  yet,  the  rule  is  a  sound  one.  Let  us  apply  it,  then, 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution — ''  this  is 
my  body." 

These  words  were  originally  uttered  by  our  Lord,  in 
the  upper  chamber  in  Jerusalem,  his  tjvelve  disciples  being 
his  only  auditors,  and  immediately  after  he  and  they  had. 
eaten  the  paschal  supper.  That  we  may,  in  so  far  as 
possible,  place  ourselves  in  the  position  of  the  disciples, 
and  so,  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand  with  their 
understandings,  let  us  properly  consider  the  following  facts : 

(1)  They  all  belonged  to  a  people,  of  whom  Cardinal 
Wiseman  truly  says, — ''  beyond  all  others  they  delighted 
in  figures,  allegories,  parables,  and  every  other  sort  of 
symbolical  teaching."  [Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  p.  261.) 
So  marked  has  this  peculiarity  ever  been,  that  a  strikingly 
figurative,  or  allegorical,  or  symbolical  expression,  is  often 
spoken  of  as  an  Orientalism;  whilst  a  strictly  literal  ex- 
pression is  spoken  of  as  an  Occidentalism.  And  this 
natural  disposition,  in  the  case  of  the  disciples,  must  have 
been  strengthened  by  their  religious  education  under  the 
complicated  ceremonial  of  Moses'  law. 


The  Apostles  and  the  Words  of  Listitation.      Idl 

(2)  TliGv  had  all  just  partaken  of  the  Jewish  passovcr; 
a  cominoniorative  rite,  and  one  at  the  same  time  replete 
with  symbolic  instruction.  And  further,  in  the  Scripture 
account  of  the  institution  of  this  rite,  and  they  must  have 
been  familiar  with  that  account, — had  probably  just  heard 
it  repeated, — the  expression  this  is  is  plainly  used  in  a 
figurative  sense,  i.  e.,  in  the  sense  of,  this  commemorates 
or  is  a  token  of. 

(3)  Our  Lord  had  just  performed  a  strange  service  for 
them,  recorded  in  the  words, — "  He  riseth  from  supper, 
and  laid  aside  his  garments ;  and  took  a  towel,  and  girded 
himself.  After  that,  he  poureth  water  into  a  basin,  and 
began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet,  and  to  wipe  them  with  a 
towel  wherewith  he  was  girded."  (Jno.  xiii.  4,  5.)  This 
service  on  his  part  was  not  rendered,  like  the  service  of  an 
ordinary  menial,  to  secure  bodily  cleansing.  His  act  was 
symbolic;  as  he  himself  explained  it,  to  teach  them  a 
lesson  of  humility,  and  loving  service  one  of  another. 
"  He  said  unto  them,  Know  ye  what  I  have  done  to  you  ? 
Ye  call  me  Master  and  Lord,  and  ye  say  well ;  for  so  I 
am.  If  I  then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have  washed  your 
feet ;  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet.  For  I 
have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  do  as  I  have 
done  to  you."  (Jno.  xiii.  12-15.) 

(4)  As  they  sat  there  at  the  table,  Jesus  taught  his  dis- 
ciples a  lesson  respecting  their  intimate  union  with  him, 
and  complete  dependence  upon  him, — a  lesson  covering, 
in  part,  the  same  ground  covered  in  the  sacrament  of  the 
Supper, — in  the  use  of  a  striking  figure,  and  in  language 
very  similar,  as  to  the  form  of  expression,  to  "  the  w^ords 
of  consecration.  '  /  am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father  is 
the  husbandman.  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not 
fruit,  he  taketh  away;  and  every  branch  that  beareth 
fruit,  he  purgeth  it,  that  it  may  bring  forth  more  fruit. 
.  .  .  I  avi  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches ;  Ho  that  abideth 
in  me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit ; 
for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  (Jno.  xv.  1,  2,  5.) 
Here,  all  admit  that  /  am,  ye  are,  are  to  be  understood 
figuratively. 

(5)  When  our  Lord  said  to  hui  disciples ;  breaking  the 


142  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

bread  and  giving  it  to  tliem,  "  Take,  cat,  tins  is  my  body," 
tliey  would  naturally  call  to  mind  lis  discourse  in  the 
synagogue  at  Capernaum,  in  which  he  had  said, — "  I  am 
the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven :  if  any 
man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever ;  and  the  bread 
which  I  will  give  him  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for 
the  life  of  the  world."  (Jno.  vi.  51.)  Which  language  he 
had  then  explained  by  the  words — "  I  am  the  bread  of 
life ;  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger ;  and  he 
that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst."  (Jno.  vi.  35.) 
On  this  last-quoted  verse,  Cardinal  Wiseman  declares  that 
"  Protestants  and  Catholics  are  agreed.  It  refers  entirely 
to  believing  in  him  (Christ)."  [Lectures  on  the  Eucharist, 
p.  51.)  Eecalling  this  discourse,  most  naturally  would 
the  disciples  infer  that  his  words  spoken  in  the  upper 
chamber  in  Jerusalem  were  to  be  understood  in  the  same 
way  with  those  uttered  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum. 

(6)  Let  the  reader  notice  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
instituted,  and  these  words  spoken  before  our  Lord's 
passion,  and  whilst  his  body  was  simply  a  natural  human 
body, — the  body  born  of  the  virgin, — just  such  a  body  as 
each  of  his  disciples  possessed ; — and  not  the  "  spiritual 
body  "  which  he  possessed  after  his  resurrection.  That 
body  did  not  possess  ubiquity,  even  to  the  extent  of  being 
in  two  places  at  the  same  time,  as  they  knew  from  their 
own  observation.  On  a  certain  occasion,  they  had  em- 
barked on  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  leavhig  him  on  the  shore. 
And  when  a  storm  arose,  He,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  as  to 
his  human  body  and  spirit,  was  not  with  them,  but  was 
"  on  a  mountain  apart,"  engaged  "  in  prayer,"  and  "  he 
was  there  alone."  In  the  midst  of  the  storm,  "  they  saw 
him  "  approach,  "  walking  on  the  sea,  and  when  they  were 
come  into  the  ship  the  wind  ceased."  (Matt.  xiv.  23-32.) 
So,  when  Lazarus  died,  Jesus  was  ''  beyond  Jordan,"  and 
not  in  Bethany.  E,ecognizing  this  fact,  on  this  occasion  he 
himself  had  said, — "  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes  that  I  was  not 
there,  to  the  intent  ye  may  believe,"  and  when,  after  three 
days,  he  came  to  Bethany,  Martha  said, — "  Lord,  if  thou 
hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died."  (Jno.  xi.  15,  21.) 
This  human  body  of  Jesus  was  there,  before  their  eyes, 


The  Apodlcs  and  the  Words  of  Institution.      113 

complete  in  all  its  parts,  a  living  body,  with  the  blood 
coursing  through  its  veins ;  when  our  Lord  took  the  bread 
from  the  table,  and  having  broken  it,  gave  it  to  his  disci- 
}»los,  saying,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,"  and  afterwards, 
the  cup,  which  he  gave  to  them  with  the  words,  "  drink 
ye  all  of  it ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament 
which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  (Matt. 
xxvi.  2G-28.)  If  we  adopt  the  Romish  interpretation  of 
"  the  words  of  institution,"  then  the  disciples  must  have 
seen,  on  this  occasion,  the  living  body  of  Jesus,  taking  his 
body,  i.  e.,  itself,  in  its  own  hands,  and  breaking  it,  and 
giving  it  to  them,  and  they  eating  it : — and  in  like  manner 
giving  them  his  blood,  and  they  drinking  it ; — and  yet  the 
very  body  they  had  eaten  and  drunk,  all  the  time,  remain- 
ing a  living  body  before  their  eyes. 

(7).  Let  it  be  further  noticed,  that  as  the  Eomanist  ad- 
mits, when  in  obedience  to  the  Lord's  command,  the  dis- 
ciples took  and  ate  the  bread,  it  looked  like  bread,  it 
felt  like  bread,  it  had  the  odor  of  bread,  it  had  the  taste 
of  bread  :  and  so  the  testimony  of  their  senses  was  clear 
and  unequivocal  to  the  fact  that  it  was  bread,  and  nothing 
else.  They  had  just  eaten  some  of  the  unleavened  cakes 
prepared  for  the  paschal  Supper — and  these,  all  admit, 
were  nothing  but  bread — in  their  celebration  of  that  ordi- 
nance. When  they  saw  Jesus  take  one  of  these  very  cakes, 
which  was  left,  and  break  it,  and  give  it  to  them,  and  they 
took  it  from  his* hands  and  ate  it,  just  as  they  had  taken 
and  eaten  that  which  he  had  handed  them  in  the  Paschal 
feast ;  and  it  looked,  and  felt,  and  tasted,  just  as  the  bread 
they  had  previously  eaten  did  ; — that  twelve  plain  men, 
with  such  a  religious  education  as  they  had  received  whilst 
the  complicated  ceremonial  of  Moses'  law  was  in  full  force, 
and  such  habits  of  thought  as  our  Lord's  instruction  of 
them  was  calculated  to  cherish,  should,  in  such  circum- 
stances, on  the  mere  strength  of  the  literal  import  of  the 
words  used — words  confessedly  often  used  figuratively — 
should  have  taken  up  the  strange,  mysterious,  unnatural 
idea  of  transubstantiation  ;  an  idea  which,  as  the  Catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  admits,  "  mocks  our  powers  of  con- 
ception,"— and  so  understood  our  Lord  to  affirm  that  the 


144  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

sonietliing  wliicti  seemed  bread  to  them,  and  which  they 
had  eaten  as  directed,  was,  in  reality,  the  very  body  which 
they  saw,  and  had  seen  all  through  the  transaction,  a  liv- 
ing body  before  their  eyes,  appears  to  me  utterly  incredi- 
ble. "  Following  the  Cardinal's  direction,  and  placing  my- 
self, as  far  as  possible,  in  the  position  of  those  to  whom 
these  words  were  originally  addressed,  that  I  might  see 
with  their  eyes  and  hear  with  their  ears,  I  feel  con- 
strained, unhesitatingly,  to  reject  the  Eomish  interpreta- 
tion of  "  the  words  of  institution." 

§  52.  Does  this  method   of  interpretation   invalidate  the 
/Scripture  testimony  to  the  Trinity? 

On  this  subject  Cardinal  Wiseman  writes:  "In  the 
very  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  St.  John  says,  '  The  Word 
100.3  God.'  This  has  always  been  considered,  by  Protestants 
as  well  as  Catholics,  a  strong  argument  for  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  Now,  the  entire  force  of  the  argument  rests  upon 
the  little  word  wets.  So  important  is  this  syllable,  that,  to 
evade  the  force,  Photinus  thought  necessary  to  separate  it 
from  the  following  word,  and  read — kai  theos  en  0  Logos 
ontos,  (f  c  ;  Crellius,  on  the  contrary,  wished  to  read — theon, 
the  Word  was  of  God.  But  how  useless  all  this  torture 
inflicted  upon  the  text,  after  the  simple  process  of  reason- 
ing which  Protestants  have  employed  against  us,  with 
such  satisfaction  to  themselves.  Mr.  Faber  .  .  .  writes : 
'  Christ  does  not  more  explicitly  say  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  this  is  my  body,  and  this  is  my  blood,  than  St. 
Paul  says  of  the  rock  whereof  the  Israelites  drank  in  the 
wilderness  :  '  and  the  rock  was  Christ.'  Well,  now,  let  us 
take  this  very  text  and  compare  it  with  the  words  of  in- 
stitution, on  one  side,  and  with  the  first  verse  of  St.  John, 
and  see  which  H  most  resembles.  I  write  it  thus  between 
them : 

'The  Word w;a.5  God.' 

'  The  Eock  was  Christ,' 

'  This  is  my  body.' 

Now  tell  me,  which  have  we  most  right  to  consider 
parallel  ?     The  construction  of  the  first  two  is,  word  for 


Bread  and  Wine  after  Consecration.  147 

On  this  conclusion  of  the  Cardinal  we  remark : — 

(1)  It  is  not  Matthew  alone  who  records  these  words 
as  spoken  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Lord's  Supper :  — on 
this  point,  the  record  of  Mark  is  in  perfect  agreement 
with  that  of  Matthew.  If  then  the  words  were  but  once 
spoken,  as  Cardinal  Wiseman  assumes,  sound  principles  of 
criticism  would  require  us  to  place  them  in  accord  with  tho 
testimony  of  the  two  witnesses  and  not  the  one: — for  the 
"vagueness  of  placing"  them  which  the  Cardinal  charges 
upon  Matthew  is  all  in  his  own  imagination. 

(2)  As  Matthew  and  Mark  were  both  unquestionably 
inspired  in  what  they  wrote,  we  may  safely  consider  the 
words  as  uttered  at  the  time  they  say  they  were,  in  so  far 
as  any  danger  of  being  led  into  error  in  their  interpreta- 
tion thereby  is  concerned. 

(3)  But  is  there  any  real  discrepancy  between  the  evan- 
gelists on  that  point  ?  We  answer — no.  We  believe, 
with  many  of  our  best  critical  scholars,  that  substantially 
the  same  words  were  uttered  by  our  Lord  on  two  separate 
occasions : — at  the  close  of  the  paschal  Supper,  as  re- 
corded by  Luke : — and,  again,  at  the  close  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  recorded  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  words 
uttered,  though  substantially  the  same,  would  have  a 
different  import  as  uttered  on  the  two  occasions,  arising 
from  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  uttered.  As 
first  spoken,  at  the  close  of  the  paschal  Supper,  they  an- 
nounced the  impending  fulfilment  of  all  that  the  Passover 
had  tyi^ified,  in  his  sacrifice  of  himself  now  about  to  be 
offered,  and  the  consequent  abrogation  of  that  ordinance. 
When  spoken  the  second  time,  they  are  intended  to  fix 
the  attention  of  his  disciples  upon  the  near  approach  of 
that  "kingdom  of  God  "  which  was  set  up  in  power  on  the 
first  Christian  pentecost,  and  which  is  to  be  consummated 
when,  as  he  says  in  verse  30,  his  disciples  shall  "  eat  and 
drink  at  his  table  in  his  kingdom." 

That  St.  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  26,  27,  calls  the  elements, 
after  consecration,  "this  bread"  and  "this  cup,"  Cardinal 
Wiseman  distinctly  admits.  {See  Lectures  on  the  Eu- 
charist, p.  304) : — and  he  seeks  to  break  the  force  of  the 
argument  against  transubstantiation  founded  on  this  fact, 


148  TIlc  Doctrine  of  iJie  Lord's  Supper. 

by  citing  instances  in  which  the  Scriptures  give  their  old 
names  to  changed  things  after  their  change. 

The  instances  he  cites  are — (1)  Exodus  vii.  12.  "For 
they  cast  down  every  man  his  rod,  and  they  became  ser- 
pents :  but  Aaron's  rod  swallowed  up  their  rods."  (2) 
John  ii.  9.  "  When  the  ruler  of  the  feast  had  tasted  the 
water  that  was  made  wine,  and  knew  not  whence  it  was 
(but  the  servants  which  drew  the  ivater  knew),"  etc.  (3) 
Jno.  ix.  17.  "Then  said  they  unto  the  blind  man  again, 
What  sayest  thou  of  him,  that  he  hath  opened  thine  eyes? 
He  said,  He  is  a  prophet."  {Lectures  on  the  Eucharist, 
pp.  307,  8.)  It  must  be  admitted  that  these  are  instances 
of  such  a  usage  as  they  are  cited  to  establish;  and  that 
they  do,  in  some  measure,  break  the  force  of  the  pro- 
testant  argument  against  transubstantiation  founded  on 
the  fact  that  the  elements  are  called  bread  and  wine  after 
their  consecration : — yet,  if  we  mistake  not,  they  break 
the  force  of  that  argument  in  appearance,  rather  than  in 
fact. 

Let  the  reader  notice,  that  in  each  of  the  three  cases 
cited, — and  they  are,  we  believe,  the  only  instances  of 
such  a  usage  in  the  Scriptures — the  giving  the  changed 
thing  its  original  name  can,  by  no  possibility,  lead  to  any 
misapprehension  of  the  facts  of  the  case  on  the  part  of  the 
reader.  In  the  first  instance,  in  the  very  same  sentence 
in  which  it  is  said — "  Aaron's  rod  swallowed  up  their 
rods,"  it  is  said  of  the  rods,  "they  became  serpents."  In 
the  second  instance,  in  the  same  sentence  in  which  the 
changed  liquid  is  called  "water,"  it  is  spoken  of  as  "the 
water  which  was  made  wine."  So,  also,  in  the  third  in- 
stance, the  whole  sentence  reads — "They  say  unto  the 
blind  man,  what  sayest  thou  of  him  that  he  hath  opened 
thine  eyes  f  But  giving  to  the  elements  after  consecration, 
after  transubstantiation  has  actually  taken  place,  if  the 
Romish  doctrine  be  true,  the  names  of  bread  and  wine, 
and  doing  this,  not  once,  but  repeatedly,  presents  an  alto- 
gether ditferent  case.  Confessedly,  the  elements  have  the 
appearance,  the  odor  and  taste  of  bread  and  wine ;  and  to 
call  them  bread  and  wine,  if,  in  reality,  they  are  no  longer 
such,  but  have  become,  after  a  most  mysterious  fashion,  a 


Bread  and  Wine  after  Consecration.  115 

word,  identical ;  certainly,  much  more  so  than  that  of  the 
two  last ;  and  if  parallelisms  have  to  depend  upon  similari- 
ty of  phrase,  and  if  Protestants  have  a  right  to  interpret 
the  words  '  this  is  my  body/  by  the  help  of  '  the  rock  was 
Christ,'  then,  I  say,  the  Socinian  has  an  equal  right  to  in- 
terpret the  phrase  '  the  Word  was  God,'  by  the  very  same 
parallelism,  and  explain  it  by  the  Word  represented  God." 
{Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  pp.  199^  201.) 
To  this  we  reply — 

(1)  We  do  not  assert  that  the  verb  to  he  is  always,  nor 
even  generally,  used  figuratively;  but  only  that  it  is 
sometimes  so  used.  And  this  the  Cardinal  expressly 
admits. 

(2)  We  have  never  said  that  mere  "  similarity  of 
phrase,"  such  as  that  which  exists  between  the  first  and 
second  of  the  passages  quoted  above,  involved  or  author- 
ized similarity  of  interpretation.  As  every  critical  scholar 
knows,  mere  "  similarity  of  phrase  "  is  of  little  worth  in 
determining  such  questions  as  the  one  under  examination. 

(3)  What  we  do  assert  is,  that  when  the  verb  to  be-  is 
used  "  in  the  explanation  of  a  symbolical  instruction,"  to 
use  the  very  words  of  the  Cardinal,  it  is  generally  to  be 
understood  figuratively.  The  second  and  third  of  the  pas- 
sages quoted  above  belong  to  the  category  of  symboHc 
teaching;  the  one,  an  allegory,  the  other  a  sacramental 
formula ;  and  so,  we  have  a  right  to  turn  to  the  one  for 
help  in  interpreting  the  other.  Whilst  the  first  quoted, 
the  words  of  St.  John,  "  The  Word  was  God,"  form  a  part 
of  a  plain,  simple  statement  of  facts,  without  the  slightest 
approach  to  s}Tnbol  or  metaphor,  and  therefore  are  to  be 
literally  understood. 

§  53.    The   elements  called   bread  and  wine  o.fter   con- 
secration. 

"  xVnd  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed 
"  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said, 
"Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and 
"gave  thanks,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it;  For  this  is  my 
"blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for 
"  the  remission  of  sins.  But  I  sav  unto  you,  I  will  not 
7 


152  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

would  seem  to  have  been  accompanied  by  a  social  feast; 
spoken  of  by  Jude  as  a  "  feast  of  charity."  (Jude  12.)  Such 
a  custom  would  very  naturally  arise  out  of  our  Lord's  in- 
stitution of  the  Supper  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
celebration  of  the  paschal  feast ; — and  it  would  be  the  more 
readily  adopted  by  the  converted  heathen  from  the  fact, 
that  they  had  always  been  accustomed  to  feasting  upon  a 
part  of  that  which  they  offered  to  their  gods,  as  an  act  of 
solemn  worship  rendered  to  those  gods.  To  this  custom 
Paul  refers  in  1  Cor.  x.  20,  21.  Among  the  Corinthians 
and  probably  in  all  the  Christian  churches  gathered  from 
among  the  Greeks,  the  material  for  these  "  feasts  of  char- 
ity" was  furnished,  by  each  one  bringing  such  food  and 
wine  as  he  was  able  from  home.  The  Greek  Christians 
had  been  accustomed  to  this  method  of  supplying  the  ma- 
terial for  their  sacred  feast  before  their  conversion  to 
Christianity.  The  bread  and  wine  thus  furnished  was 
thrown  into  one  common  stock;  when  so  much  as  was  re- 
quired for  the  celebration  of  the  sacrament  having  been 
set  apart,  the  remainder  was  used  in  the  feast  of  charity. 

In  the  Church  of  Corinth,  for  a  season,  all  seems  to  have 
worked  well.  Bat  when  dissensions  sprang  up — when  the 
"  contentions  among  them  "  reached  the  point  at  which 
every  one  said,  "  1  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of 
Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ,"  (1  Cor.  i.  11,  12)  the  wealthy, 
who  were  able  to  furnish  abundant  provision,  would  seem 
to  have  gathered  those  of  their  own  party  around  them, 
and  to  have  utterly  neglected  the  claims  of  their  poorer 
brethren,  especially  those  who  did  not  belong  to  their 
party.  Thus  it  came  about,  that  some  ate  and  drank  to 
excess,  while  others  were  compelled  to  go  away  hungry. 
"With  this  state  of  things  in  his  mind,  Paul  writes :  "■  This 
is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper,"  That  is,  "when  you  as- 
semble thus,  it  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper;  this  is 
not  the  real,  though  it  is  your  professed  purpose  :  you  como 
together  for  a  common,  and  that,  too,  a  disorderly  meal." 

''The  two  grounds  on  which  the  apostle  condemns  this 
conduct  of  the  Corinthians,  were,  first,  that  it  was  a  per- 
version of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  second,  that  it  was  dis- 
respectful and  mortifying  to  their  poorer  brethren.     It 


Bread  and  Wiiie  after  Consecration.  149 

fashion  of  which  no  other  instance  is  furnished  by  all 
God's  creation,  the  true  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  is 
well  calculated  to  deceive : — and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  has 
deceived  great  numbers  (all  Protestants)  of  the  most  care- 
ful Bible  students,  in  every  age  and  country.  An  occa- 
sional loose  use  of  terms, — an  occasional  departure  from 
liter  il  accuracy  in  naming  things,  may  be  tolerated,  and, 
in  fact,  is  tolerated  in  all  kinds  of  writing,  where  there  is 
no  danger  of  its  deceiving  the  reader.  But  where  the 
almost  inevitable  consequence  of  such  a  use  of  names  is  to 
deceive,  and  that  in  a  matter  of  the  first  importance,  no 
honest  man — least  of  all  "  a  holy  man  of  God  who  speaks 
as  moved  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  (2  Pet.  i.  21)  can  be  sup- 
posed to  be  guilty  of  it.  Hence,  the  instances  cited  by 
Cardinal  Wiseman,  are  entitled  to  but  little  weight,  as 
against  the  Protestant  inference,  that,  as  our  Lord  and  his 
inspired  Apostles  give  to  the  bread  and  wine,  after  conse- 
cration, the  names  of  bread  and  wine,  they  are,  in  reality, 
neither  more  nor  less  than  bread  and  wine. 


154  The  Doctrine  of  the  LorcVs  Supper. 

of  worthy  or  unworthy  participants ;  but  of  eating  and 
drinking  unwortliily.  Not  the  character  of  the  person, 
but  the  manner  of  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  the 
subject  of  remarl^. 

Certainly,  ''it  is  not  to  eat  and  drink  with  a  conscious- 
ness of  unworthiness,  for  such  a  sense  of  ill-desert  is  one  of 
the  conditions  of  acceptable  communion.  It  was  not  the 
whole  but  the  consciously  sick,  whom  Christ  came  to  heal; 
nor  is  it  to  eat  with  doubt  and  misgiving  of  our  being  du- 
ly prepared  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table  ;  for  such  doubts, 
although  an  evidence  of  weak  faith,  indicate  a  better  state 
of  mind  than  indifference,  or  false  security."  [Hodges 
Commentary  on  1  Cor.  xi.  21.)  One  of  the  chief  purposes 
for  which  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  was  that  of 
strengthening  a  weak  faith  by  ''setting  forth  Christ  evi- 
dently crucified"  before  the  believer's  eyes. 

In  V.  29,  "eating  and  drinking,  not  discerning  the 
Lord's  body,"  is  evidently  used  as  equivalent  to  "  eating 
and  drinking  unworthily"  in  v.  27.'  "  The  word  diakrino 
translated  to  discern,  means  to  separate,  then  to  cause  to 
differ,  as  in  v.  7,  and  also,  to  judge  of,  either  in  the  sense 
of  discriminating  one  thing  from  another,  or  in  the  sense 
of  estimating  aright.  This  passage  may  therefore  mean, 
not  discriminating  the  Lord's  body,  i.  e.,  making  no  differ- 
ence between  the  bread  in  the  sacrament,  and  ordinary 
food ;  or  it  may  mean,  not  estimating  it  aright,  not  receiv- 
ing it  as  the  appointed  symbol  of  the  body  of  the  Lord.  In 
either  case,  the  offense  is  the  same.  The  ground  of  the 
condemnation  incurred  is,  regarding  and  treating  the  ele- 
ments in  the  Lord's  Supper  as  though  there  was  nothing 
to  distinguish  them  from  ordinary  bread  and  wine." 

"  To  eat  and  drink  unworthily  is,  in  general,  to  come  to 
the  Lord's  table  in  a  careless,  irreverent  spirit,  without 
the  intention  or  desire  to  commemorate  the  death  of 
Christ  as  the  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  without  the  pur- 
pose of  complying  with  the  engagements  which  we  there- 
by assume.  The  way  that  the'Corinthians  ate  unworthily 
was,  that  they  treated  the  Lord's  table  as  though  it  were 
their  own;  making  no  distinction  between  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  an  ordinary  meal ;  coming  together  to  satisfy 


Eating  and  Drinking  Damnation.  155 

their  hunger,  and  not  to  feed  on  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ;  and  refusing  to  commune  with  their  poorer 
brethren."     [Hodges  Commentary  on  1  Cor.  xi.  29.) 

2.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "shall  be  guilty 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  ?"  Verse  27  is  intro- 
duced with  a  "wherefore :" — it  is  an  inference  from  what 
has  been  before  stated,  viz. :  "  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till 
he  come."  "  If  the  Lord's  Supper  be,  in  its  very  nature, 
a  proclamation  of  the  death  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  those 
who  attend  upon  it  as  an  ordinary  meal,  or  in  an  irrever- 
ent manner,  or  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  for  which 
it  was  appointed,  are  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord: — that  is,  they  contract  guilt  in  reference  to  the 
body  a.nd  blood  of  Christ,  see  James  ii.  10.  The  man  who 
tramples  on  the  flag  of  his  country,  insults  his  coun- 
try; and  he  who  treats  with  indignity  the  representa- 
tive of  a  sovereign,  thereby  offends  the  sovereign  himself. 
In  like  manner,  he  who  treats  the  symbol  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood  irreverently  is  guilty  of  irreverence  towards 
Christ.  The  idea  that  he  is  so  evil,  that  he  would  have 
joined  in  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord ;  or  that  he  makes 
himself  a  partaker  of  the  guilt  of  his  death,  does  not  lie 
in  the  words."     {Hodge's  Com.  on  1  Cor.  xi.  27.) 

§  55.   Eating   and   drinking  damnation   {judgment)    to 
thejnselves.      Vs.  28-34. 

"  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of 
"  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth 
"and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation 
"(judgment,  Margl.)  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
"body.  For  this  cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among 
"you,  and  many  sleep.  For  if  we  would  judge  ourselves, 
"we  should  not  be  judged.  But  when  we  are  judged,  we 
"are  chastened  of  the  Lord,  that  we  should  not  be  con- 
"  damned  with  the  world.  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when 
"ye  come  together  to  eat,  tarry  one  for  another.  And  if 
"any  hunger,  let  him  eat  at  home;  that  ye  come  not 
"  together  unto  condemnation.  And  the  rest  will  I  set  in 
"order  when  I  come." 


156  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

On  verse  29  Dr.  Doddridge  remarks, — "  I  think  it  the 
most  unhappy  mistake  in  all  our  version  of  the  Bible,  that 
the  word  krima  is  here  rendered  damnation.  It  has 
raised  a  dread  in  tender  minds,  which  has  greatly  ob- 
structed the  comfort  and  edification  they  might  have 
received  from  this  ordinance."  {Doddridge's  Family  Ex- 
positor, 1  Cor.  xi.  29.) 

''  The  word  damnation,  used  in  our  version,  originally 
and  properly  means  simply  condemnation,  and  not  hopeless 
and  final  perdition,  which  is  the  modern  and  popular 
sense.  In  the  original  the  word  is  krima,  without  the 
article,  and  therefore  simply  judgment,  and  not  the  judg- 
ment. The  meaning  obviously  is,  tliat  the  unworthy 
eater  contracts  guilt;  he  exposes  himself  to  the  judgments 
of  God."  {Hodges  Com.  on  1  Cor.  xi.  29.) 

1.  The  exact  nature  of  the  judgments  of  God  which 
the  unworthy  eating  of  the  Lord's  Supper  had  brought 
upon  many  in  the  Church  at  Corinth,  are  set  forth  in  the 
words, —  "Therefore  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among 
you,  and  many  sleep."  —  ''The  distinction  between  the 
words  weak  and  sickly  made  by  commentators  is,  that  the 
former  designates  those  whose  strength  decays  as  it  were 
of  itself,  and  the  latter,  those  rendered  infirm  by  sickness. 
The  latter  term  is  the  stronger  of  the  two.  '  And  many 
sleep,'  i.  e.,  have  already  died.  As  there  is  nothing  in  the 
context  to  intimate  that  these  terms  are  used  figuratively, 
of  moral  infirmities  or  spiritual  declension,  they  should  be 
taken  in  their  literal  sense.  Paul  knew  that  the  prevail- 
ing sickness  and  frequent  deaths  among  the  Christians 
of  Corinth  were  a  judgment  of  God  on  account  of  the 
irreverent  manner  in  which  they  had  celebrated  the 
Lord's  Supper."  {Hodges  Com.  on  1  Cor.  xi.  30.)  Does 
any  one  ask,  how  he  knew  this  ?  the  answer  is  ;  he  writes 
here,  as  throughout  his  epistles,  by  inspiration  of  God. 

Under  the  theocratic  government  established  in  Israel, 
the  actual  reward  of  well  doing,  and  the  punishment  of 
many  forms  of  ill-doing  was  retained  of  God  in  his  own 
hands.  Especially  was  this  the  case  with  respect  to  crimes 
directed  immediately  against  that  worship  of  himself 
which  God  established  in  the  days  of  Moses.     Of  this  we 


Eating  and  Drinking  Unworthily.  157 

luavo  an  illustration,  in  the  death  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  by 
"  fire  from  the  Lord,"  when  they  "  offered  strange  fire 
before  the  Lord ;"  (Lev.  x.  1,  2.)  And  in  the  leprosy  of 
king  Uzziah,  which  came  upon  him  when  he  invaded  the 
office  of  the  priest,  and  untlcrtook  to  burn  incense  in  the 
temple.  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  1G-2L)  It  was  very  gradually 
that  the  change  was  made,  from  the  order  of  things  which 
belonged  to  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  to  that  wliic;h 
is  characteristic  of  the  New.  Hence,  we  find  punish- 
ment, directly  at  the  hand  of  God,  inflicted  upon  this 
same  class  of  oftenders  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  : — as  in 
the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  (see  Acts  v.  1-11)  and 
of  Ely  mas  the  Sorcerer  (see  Acts  xiii.  8-11),  and  of  these 
Corinthians,  who  profaned  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  making 
it  a  disorderly,  unbrotherly  feast.  This  change  has  long 
since  been  completed,  and  the  order  of  things  described  in 
this  passage  has  passed  away.  In  our  day,  we  have  no 
more  reason  to  expect  the  infliction  of  bodily  disease,  as  a 
punishment  for  an  unworthy  eating  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
than  any  other  miraculous  setting  aside  of  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature.  Not  that  such  conduct  is  less  criminal 
now  than  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  but  because  the  age 
of  miracles  has  passed. 

2.  In  the  words — "  But  when  we  are  judged,  we  are 
"  chastened  of  the  Lord,  that  we  should  not  be  condemned 
"with  the  world," — these  judgments  r.re  distinctly  de- 
clared to  be  of  the  nature  of  fatherly  chastisements,  in- 
tended to  secure  the  reclamation  and  final  salvation  of  the 
offender ;  and  not  damnation,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
word,  i.  e.,  hopeless  and  final  perdition.  The  nature  of 
fatherly  chastisements  in  Scripture,  is  set  forth  in  the 
words: — "Whom  the  Lord  loveth,  he  chasteneth,  and 
scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth.  If  ye  endure 
chastening,  Grod  dealeth  with  you  as  with  sons,  for  what 
son  is  he  whom  the  Father  chasteneth  not.  ...  No 
chastening  for  the  present  seemeth  joyous,  but  grievous  : 
nevertheless,  afterward,  it  yieldeth  the  peaceable  fruits  of 
righteousness  to  them  which  are  exercised  thereby." 
(Heb.  xii.  6,  7,  11.) 

In  the  concluding  words  of  this  passage ;  in  which  the 


158  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  SupjieT. 

Apostle  gives  a  practical  application  of  the  wliole  — 
"  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when  ye  come  together  to  eat, 
tarry  one  for  another,  and  if  any  man  hunger,  let  him  eat 
at  home" — there  is  an  evident  reference  to  his  words  in 
the  opening  portion, — ''  This  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. For  in  eating  every  one  taketh  before  other  his  own 
supper :  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another  is  drunken. 
What!  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in?"^ 
Thus  showing,  beyond  all  reasonable  question,  that  the 
subject  of  the  whole  passage  is  one  and  the  same ;  and 
that  the  name  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  given  to  the  ordi- 
nance particularly  described  in  vers.  23-26,  which  all 
agree  is  the  sacrament  of  the  supper,  the  Eucharist,  and 
not  the  "  feast  of  Charity  "  which  sometimes  preceded  that 
ordinance. 


§  56,    Romish  Vieivs  of  Verses  27-29. 

Eomish  writers  take  a  very  different  view  of  certain 
parts  of  this  passage,  from  that  given  above  : — and  to  this 
interpretation  of  them  we  will  now  ask  the  reader's  atten- 
tion. 

"  Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of 
"  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and 
"  blood  of  the  Lord.  ...  He  that  eateth  and  drinketh 
"  unworthily  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself, 
"  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body." 

On  these  words  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
comments  : — "  If,  as  heresy  asserts,  the  sacrament  presents 
"  nothing  to  our  veneration  but  a  memorial  sign  of  the 
"  passion  of  Christ,  why  exhort  the  faithful,  in  language  so 
"  energetic  to  prove  themselves?  The  answer  is  obvious  : 
"by  the  heavy  denunciation  contained  in  the  word  judg- 
"  ment."  (The  Douay  Bible  has  the  word  judgrnent  where 
the  authorized  Version  has  damnation,  and  so  comes 
nearer  to  the  original.) — "  The  Apostle  marks  the  enormity 
"  of  his  guilt,  who  receives  unworthily  and  distinguishes 
"  not  from  common  food  the  body  of  the  Lord,  concealed 
"  beneath  the  eucharistic  veil.  The  preceding  words  of 
"  the  Apostle  develop  more  fully  his  meaning.  *  The  chal- 


BomUh  VieiC8  of  Verses  27-20.  ir,0 

"  ice  of  benediction,'  says  he,  'which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
"  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  and  the  bread  which 
"  we  break,  is  it  not  the  participation  of  the  body  of  the 
"Lord?'  words  which  prove  to  demonstration  the  real 
"  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  holy  sacrament  of  the 
"  Eucharist."  {Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  157.) 

"  The  first  preparation,  then,  which  the  faithful  should 
"  make,  is  to  distingush  table  from  table,  the  sacred  table 
"  from  profane  tables,  this  celestial  bread  from  common 
"  bread.  This  we  do  when  we  firmly  believe  that  the 
"  Eucharist  really  and  truly  contains  the  body  and  blood 
"  of  the  Lord,  of  him  whom  the  angels  adore  in  heaven, 
"  '  at  whose  nod  the  pillars  of  heaven  fear  and  tremble,' 
(Job  xxvi.  11)  of  whose  glory  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
"  are  full,  (Isa.  vi.  3.)  This  is  to  discern  the  body  of  the 
"  Lord,  in  accordance  with  the  admonition  of  the  Apostle, 
"  venerating  rather,  the  greatness  of  the  mystery,  than 
"  too  curiously  investigating  its  truth  by  idle  disquisition." 
[Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  168.) 

Archbishop  Gibbons  writes  :  "  Mark  these  words  of  the 
Apostle.  Whosoever  shall  take  the  sacrament  unworthily, 
'  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.'  What 
a  heinous  crime !  for  these  words  signify  that  he  who 
receives  the  sacrament  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the 
sin  of  high  treason,  and  of  shedding  the  blood  of  his  Lord 
in  vain.  But  how  could  he  be  guilty  of  a  crime  so  enor- 
mous, if  he  had  taken  in  the  Eucharist  only  a  particle  of 
bread  and  wine  ?  AVould  a  man  be  accused  of  homicide, 
in  this  if  he  were  to  offer  violence  to  the  statue  or  paint- 
ing of  tlie  governor?  Certainly  not.  In  like  manner,  St. 
Paul  would  not  be  so  unreasonable  as  to  declare  a  man 
guilty  of  trampling  on  the  blood  of  his  Saviour,  by  drink- 
ing in  an  unworthy  manner  a  little  wine  in  memory  of 
him." 

"  Study  also  these  words  :  '  He  who  eateth  and  drinketh 
unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  condemnation  to  himself, 
not  discerning  the  body  of  the  Lord.'  This  unworthy  re- 
ceiving is  condemned  for  not  recognizing  or  discerning  in 
the  Eucharist  the  body  of  the  Lord.  How  could  he  be 
blamed  for  not  discerning  the  body  of  the  Lord,  if  there 


160  Tlic  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

were  only  bread  and  wine  before  liim?  Hence,  if  the 
words  of  St.  Paul  are  figuratively  understood,  they  are 
distorted,  forced  and  exaggerated  terms,  without  meaning 
or  truth.  Bat  if  they  are  taken  literally,  they  are  full  of 
sense  and  awful  significance,  and  an  eloquent  commentary 
on  the  words  I  have  quoted  from  the  Evangelists."  {Faith 
of  our  Fathers,  p.  338.) 

On  these  comments  we  remark  : — 

1.  The  application  in  this  passage,  of  the  names  "  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord "  to  the  eucharistic  elements  is 
made  on  the  principle  already  fully  explained  in  Chap,  iii. 
To  their  use  in  this  particular  passage,  as  an  argument  for 
transubstantiation,  we  have  a  full  offset  in  the  fact,  that 
in  this  very  passage,  and  in  the  same  breath  in  which 
they  are  called  "  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,"  they 
are  called  "  this  bread  "  and  "  this  cup  of  the  Lord ,"  and 
this,  after  their  consecration. 

2.  To  be  "  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord, — 
is  simply  to  contract  guilt  with  reference  to  that  body  and 
blood,  (see  §  54) : — and  from  the  context  we  must  deter- 
mine what  the  nature  of  the  crime  and  the  amount  of  guilt 
contracted  is.  How  the  context  determines  these  points, 
we  have  already  seen.  Neither  the  words  themselves,  nor 
the  context  give  any  countenance  to  Archbishop  Gibbons' 
representation  that  the  crime  "  is  that  of  high  treason,  and 
of  shedding  the  blood  of  the  Lord  in  vain:" — and  so,  his. 
question — "  Would  a  man  be  accused  of  homicide,  in  this 
commonwealth,  if  he  were  to  offer  violence  to  the  statue 
or  painting  of  the  governor  ?  "  is  altogether,  beside  the 
point.  A  far  truer  representation  of  the  case  is  presented 
in  the  words  of  Dr.  Hodge, — Would  a  man  be  accused  of 
criminal  conduct  for  "  trampling  on  the  flag  of  his  coun- 
try, or  treating  with  indignity  the  representative  of  his 
sovereign  ?"  And  to  this  question,  all  must  give  the  same 
answer. 

3.  "Discerning  the  Lord's  body,"  is  not — as  Arch- 
bishop Gibbons  takes  for  granted — seeing  that  body.  That 
is  the  popular  sense  of  the  English  word  discerning : — 
But  it  is  never  the  sense  of  the  Greek  diakrino.  As 
already  stated,  diakrino  *'  means  to  separate,  then  to  oause 


The  Dodrvie  of  the  lical  Ficsence.  101 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  REAL  PRESENCE. 

258.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  defined,  ?  59.  The  way  in  which  Tran- 
substantiation  and  the  Real  Presence  are  accomplished.  §  60.  Examination 
of  the  Scripture  proofs  of  the  Real  Presence. 

§  58.   The  Doctrine  of  "  the  Heal  Presence  "  defined. 

"  Canon  I.  If  any  one  denietb,  that  in  the  sacrament  of 
"  the  most  holy  Eucharist,  are  contained  truli/,  really  and 
'' substantially,  the  body  and  blood  together  with  the  soul 
"  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently 
"  the  whole  Christ;  but  saith  that  he  is  only  there  as  a 
"sign,  or  in  figure,  or  virtue;  let  him  be  anathema. 
{Cmcncil  of  Trent,  yini.  Session.) 

"  The  pastor  will  explain  to  the  faithful,  that  in  this 
"  sacrament  are  contained  not  only  the  true  body  of  Christ, 
"  and  all  the  constituents  of  a  true  body,  but  also,  Christ, 
"  whole  and  entire,— that  the  word  Christ  designates  the 
"  man-God,  that  is  to  say,  one  person  in  whom  are  united 
"  the  divine  and  human  natures,— that  the  holy  Eucharist, 
"  therefore,  contains  both,  and  whatsoever  is  included  in 
"  the  idea  of  both,  the  divinity  and  humanity,  whole  and 
"  entire  the  soul,  the  body  and  the  blood  of  Christ  with  all 
"  their  component  parts,— all  of  which  faith  teaches  us 
"  are  contained  in  the  sacrament."  {Catechism  of  the  Coun- 
eilof  Trent,  p.  159.) 

"  It  is  to  be  acknowledged,  that  Christ  whole  and  entire 
"  and  a  true  sacrament  are  received  under  either  species 
"alone;  and  that  therefore,  as  regards  the  fruit  thereof 
"  they  who  receive  one  species  alone  are  not  defrauded  ot 
"  any  grace  necessary  to  salvation."  {Council  of  Trent,  xxi. 
Session,  ch.  iii.) 


164  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

"  The  pastor  will  also  inform  the  faithful,  that  Christ 
''whole  and  entire,  is  contained  not  only  under  either 
"  species  :  'but '  each — says  St.  Augustine, — receives  Christ 
"  the  Lord  entire  in  each  particle :  he  is  not  diminished  by 
"  being  given  to  many,  but  gives  himself  whole  and 
"  entire  to  each."  {Catechisin  of  the  Couneil  of  Trent,  p. 
160.) 

"  The  bread  and  wine,  are  changed  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  living,  and  consequently,  to  the  body 
not  separate  from  the  blood,  to  the  blood  not  separate  from 
the  body,  to  the  body  and  blood  not  separate  from  the  soul 
and  divinity  of  Christ.  After  the  consecration,  then,  there 
is  not  here  the  body  and  there  the  blood;  but  under  the 
sacramsntal  sign,  however  reduced  be  its  dimensions,  and 
whatever  be  its  form,  there  exists  the  humanity  of  the 
Saviour,  entire,  indivisible,  immortal,  such  as  it  is  in 
heaven,  only  veiling  its  glory  from  our  senses.  Accord- 
ingly a  drop  which  falls  from  the  chalice,  a  crumb  which 
is  separated  from  the  consecrated  Host,  are,  the  one  as 
well  as  the  other,  the  thrice  holy  humanity  which  was 
sacrificed  for  us  on  the  cross."  {Nampons  Catholie  Doe- 
trine,  p.  400.) 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  Real  Presence  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  I  do ;  that  is,  I  believe  that  the  body  and 
blood,  the  soul,  and  divinity,  of  our  Lord  are  truly,  really, 
and  substantially  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  I  be- 
lieve this  as  firmly  as  if  I  saw  it  with  my  own  eyes,  be- 
cause Jesus  Christ  has  said  it. 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  in  transubstantiation  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  I  do  believe  in  transubstantiation ;  that  is,  I 
believe  that  after  consecration  there  is  no  bread  in  the  host 
and  no  wine  in  the  chalice,  but  only  the  appearance  of  it." 
(Bishop  Vernot's  Catechism,  pp.  22,  23.) 

As  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  Transubstantiation 
consists  in  the  "  conversion  of  the  whole  substance  of  the 
bread  into  the  substance  of  the  body  of  Christ  our  Lord, 
and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  substance 
of  his  blood,"  so  that  as  the  direct  consequence  of  this 
change,  there  is  present  in  the  Eucharist,  simply  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ. 


Bomish  Vie2vs  on  Vci'scs  27-29.  IGl 

to  differ;  and  also,  judge  of,  either  in  the  sense  dis- 
criminating one  tiling  from  another,  or  in  the  sense  of 
estimating  aright."  Of  simikir  import  is  tlie  Latin  dija- 
dicavs,"  used  in  the  Vulgate.  '*  JJijudieo  {dis  and  judico) 
to  judge  between,  distinguish,  discern,  decide,  determine." 
{Leverctt's  Lex.)  Here,  the  discrimination  is  between 
the  bread  which  has  been  solemnly  set  apart  with  prayer 
and  thanksgiving,  as  the  representative  of  Christ's  body, 
to  be  partaken  of  in  remembrance  of  him ;  and  the  bread 
of  an  ordinary  meal,  partaken  of  to  satisfy  hunger.  Such 
bread  bears  to  the  body  of  the  living  Christ  now  in  hea- 
ven a  relation,  not  unlike  that  which  the  flag  of  a  country 
bears  to  the  living  sovereign  of  that  country, —  and  hence 
the  criminality  of  treating  it  as  common  bread. 

§  57.  Romish  views  of  vs.  28. 

"  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of 
"  that  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup." 

"  He  who  would  communicate,  ought  to  recall  to  mind 
"  the  precept  of  the  Apostle :  '  Let  a  man  prove  himself, '  1 
"  Cor.  xi.  28.  Now  ecclesiastical  usage  declares  that  ne- 
"  cessary  proof  to  be,  that  no  one  conscious  to  himself  of 
"  mortal  sin,  how  contrite  soever  he  may  seem  to  himself, 
' '  ought  to  approach  to  the  sacred  Eucharist  without  pre- 
"  vious  sacramental  confession.  This  the  holy  Synod  hath 
"  decreed  is  to  be  invariably  observed  by  all  Christians." 
{Council  of  Trent,  Thirteenth  Session,  Ch.  vii.) 

"  If  any  one  saith,  that  faith  alone  is  sufficient  prepara- 
"  tion  for  receiving  the  sacrament  of  the  most  holy  Eu- 
"charist;  let  him  be  anathema.  And  for  fear,  lest  so 
"  great  a  sacrament  may  be  received  unworthily,  and  so 
"  unto  death  and  condemnation,  this  holy  Synod  ordains 
"  and  declares,  that  sacramental  confession,  when  a  con- 
"  fessor  may  be  had,  is  of  necessity  to  be  made  beforehand, 
"  by  those  whose  conscience  is  burdened  with  mortal  sin, 
"  how  contrite  soever  they  may  think  themselves.  But  if 
"  any  one  shall  presume  to  teach,  preach,  or  obstinately  to 
"  assert,  or  even  in  public  disputation  to  defend  the  con- 
"  trary,  he  shall  be  thereupon  excommunicated."  (Council 
of  Trent,  Thirteenth  Session,  Can.  xi.) 


1G2  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

By  "  sacramental  confession "  the  Council  of  Trent 
means,  confession  to  a  priest.  Is  this  the  examinatioyi 
enjoined  in  vs.  28  ?  The  Apostle  says — "  Let  a  man 
examine  himself ;  "  not, — Let  a  priest  examine  him.  And 
that  the  examination  here  spoken  of  is  a  man's  examina- 
tion of  himself,  is  placed  beyond  all  reasonable  question  by 
vs.  31,—"  For  if  we  would  judge  ourselves,  we  should  not 
be  judged  of  God." 

Conclusions. 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  Scriptural  authority  for 
transubstantiation  to  which  Eomanists  appeal. 

1.  Our  Lord's  discourse  at  Capernaum  (John  vi.), 
which  Romish  writers  speak  of  as  a  "  promise  "  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  And  have  found,  that  so  far  is  it  from 
being  a  promise  of  that  ordinance,  it  does  not  even  refer 
to  it,  any  further  than  is  implied  in  the  fact  that  the 
figurative  language  of  the  discourse,  and  the  symbolism 
of  the  ordinance,  may  be  traced  back  to  a  common  source, 
viz.,  the  sacrificial  worship  of  the  Old  Testament  dispen- 
sation.    (Part  IL  cli.  ii.) 

2.  The  words -of  institution, '' i:/u5  is  my  body."  And 
here  we  have  found  that  the  two  rules  of  interpretation, 
confessed  by  Cardinal  Wiseman  to  be  sound  rules,  viz. — 
(1)  That  where  the  verb  "to  he"  is  used  in  the  exposition 
of  symbolic  instruction  it  may  be  understood  figuratively, 
—  and  (2)  That  language  must  be  understood  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  those  to  whom  it 
was  originally  addressed  would  understand  it, — require 
us  to  reject  the  Romish  interpretation,  and  adopt  one  fatal 
to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.    (Part  IL,  ch.  iii.) 

3.  Paul's  language  in  1  Cor.  x.,  xi.,  which  all  admit 
must  be  interpreted  in  accoixlance  with  John  vi.  and 
"the  words  of  institution,"  and  so  can  give  no  counte- 
nance to  the  Pv-omish  doctrine. 

Let  the  reader  now  recall  the  "conclusions"  at  which 
we  arrived  in  Part  IL,  ch.  i.,  and  we  ask, — Is  this  evi- 
dence upon  which  to  reject  testimony  to  which  God  and 
man  alike  appeal,  and  which  the  Holy  Ghost  expressly 
declares  "infallible  truth?" 


Traa.'^ubstantiation  and  the  Real  Presence.       167 

"  manner,  under  the  species  of  wine,  arc  contained  not 
"  only  the  blood,  but  also  the  body  and  Christ  entire. 
"  These  are  matters  on  which  the  faithful  cannot  entei'- 
"  tain  a  doubt."  {Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  |)p. 
159,  160.) 

In  the  above  extracts  from  the  Decrees  and  Catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  the  doctrine  is  taught : — 

(1.)  That  transubstantiation  is  eiTected, — and  conse- 
quently the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist  secured,  by  the  priest's  act,  in  pronouncing  the 
words  of  consecration;  the  words,  this  is  my  body  "effec- 
tuating what  they  signify:" — and  this,  because  they  are 
pronounced  by  one  who  "  acts  in  the  person  of  Christ,  .  .  . 
liolding  the  place  and  poioer  and  authority  of  God  on 
earth."    See  §  35. 

(2.)  That  the  presence  of  the  blood  in  the  transubstan- 
tiated bread,  and  the  presence  of  the  body  in  the  transub- 
stantiated wine,  and  the  presence  of  the  soul  and  divinity 
in  both  alike,  so  that  "  the  whole  Christ "  is  present  in 
every  particle  of  each,  is  not  effected,  immediately,  by  the 
words  of  consecration,  but  "  by  virtue  of  the  union  which 
subsists  between  them  and  his  body,"  that  is,  by  what 
"  theologians  express  by  the  word  concomitance!' 

"  Concomitance  designates  the  accompanying  of  the  body 
of  Christ  with  his  blood  (and  the  reverse),  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  did  not  suffi- 
ciently define  this.  Hence  arose  the  doctrine  of  concomi- 
tance ;  which,  of  course,  presupposes  the  former,  as, 
virtualiter,  we  cannot  conceive  of  living  flesh  without 
blood.  The  term  was  introduced  by  Thomas  Aquinas. 
He  speaks  of  a  Tiaturalis  and  realis  cone,  and  bases  his 
view  on  the  principle  :  if  any  two  things  are  really  united, 
where  one  of  them  is,  the  other,  of  necessity,  must  be.  On 
the  same  principle  he  argued  that  the  divinity,  and  soul 
of  Christ  were  in  the  sacrament."  [Herzogs  Theol.  Ency- 
clopedia.   Art.  Concomitance.) 

According  to  this  teaching,  the  presence  of  a  portion  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  which  exists  in  the 
Eucharist  is  owing,  directly,  to  the  act  of  the  priest  in 
pronouncing  the  words  of  consecration : — Whilst  the  pre- 


168  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

sence  of  a  second  portion  of  the  body  and  blood,  together 
with  all  the  soul  and  divinity  which  make  every  particle 
of  the  Eucharist  a  "  complete  Christ "  is  the  result  of  con- 
comitance. Transubstantiation  is  the  work  of  the  priest : — 
The  Real  Presence,  in  the  distinctive  sense  of  that  expres- 
sion, is  effected  by  concomitance.  I  would  ask  the  reader, 
especially  to  notice  this  distinction ;  as  Romish  as  well  as 
Protestant  writers  often  confound  the  two,  and  so,  no 
little  confusion  is  introduced  into  their  reasoning  on  the 
subject. 

§  60.     Exatnination  of  the  Scripture  proof  of  the  Real 
Presence. 

Cardinal  Wiseman  entitles  his  work  "  Lectures  on  the 
Real  Presence;" — and  his  Scripture  proof  of  that  doctrine 
is  all  taken  from  the  latter  portion  of  our  Lord's  discourse 
at  Capernaum,  and  the  words  of  institution,  recorded  in 
the  Gospels  and  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 
They  are  all  utterances  of  our  Lord,  and  the  Cardinal 
demands  that  we  shall  understand  them  literally.  We 
have  already  shown  how  unreasonable  this  demand  is,  (see 
ch.  iii.,  iv.,) — but  for  a  special  reason,  let  us  accede  to 
this  demand,  and  take  these  words  literally,  and  see  just 
how  much  of  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  will  be  thus 
proved. 

In  his  discourse  at  Capernaum  our  Lord  said :  "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son 
of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you. 
Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath 
eternal  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  For 
my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed. 
He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth 
in  me  and  I  in  him."  (Jno.  vi.  53-56.) 

Taking  no  notice  of  the  sacrificial  character  of  this  lan- 
guage, (see  ch.  ii.) — but  understanding  it  just  as  the 
Cardinal  would  have  us,  literally,  the  condition  upon 
which  our  eternal  life  is  made  to  depend  is  eating  the  flesh 
and  drinking  the  blood  of  Christ  after  his  death.  This 
must  be  so  for  two  reasons :  (1)  Flesh  is  always  eaten  after 


Tra)isubsta)itLatio)i  and  the  Heal  Frcscncc.       1G5 

The  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  as  defined  by  the 

same  authority  declares: — 

(1)  That  in  the  Eucharist  there  is  present,  in  addition 
to  the  body  and  blood,  "the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Clirist," — "  Christ  whole  and  entire, — the  God- 
man, — the  one  person  in  whom  are  united  the  divine  and 
human  natures." 

(2)  "  That  Christ  whole  and  entire  is  contained,  not  only 
under  either  species,  but  also  in  each  particle  of  either 
species," — so  that  in  each  consecrated  Host,  Christ  whole 
and  entire  is  multiplied  as  many  times  as  there  are  particles 
in  that  Host ;  and  in  each  consecrated  Cup,  Christ  whole 
and  entire  is  multiplied  as  many  times  as  there  are  drops 
in  the  liquid  contained  in  that  Cup. 

On  the  truth  of  the  first  of  these  statements  is  fomided 
the  worship  of  the  host  with  "  the  worship  due  to  God  :  " — 
on  the  truth  of  the  second  is  founded  the  administration 
of  this  sacrament,  under  the  species  of  bread  alone,  to  the 
laity. 

The  Council  of  Trent  affirms  that  in  the  Eucharist,  ''the 
whole  Christ  is  contained  truly,  really  and  substantially." 
"  The  word  really  is  used  in  opposition  to  figuratively," 
and  the  Council  "  conjoins  with  that  word  the  terms  truly 
and  substantially,  the  former  being  used  in  order  to  exclude 
the  notion  of  a  barely  typical  representation,  such  as  is 
recognizable  in  the  Paschal  Lamb,  and  the  other  Messianic 
types  of  the  Old  Law ;  and  the  latter  for  the  purpose  of 
meeting  the  views  ascribed  to  Calvin,  that  Christ,  as  appre- 
hended by  the  faith  of  the  believer,  was,  for  such  believer, 
rendered  virtually  present  in  the  Eucharist,  and  that  his 
body  and  blood  were  received  in  virtue  and  efficacy, 
although  not  in  corporeal  substance."  {Chambers  Cyclope- 
dia, Art.  Real  Presence) 

§  59.    The  way  in  ivhich  transubstantiation  and  the  real 
presence  are  accomplished. 

"  And  this  faith  has  ever  been  in  the  Church  of  God, 
"  that  immediately  after  the  consecration,  the  veritable 
"body  of  our  Lord,  and  his  veritable  blood,  together  with 


166  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

"  liis  soul  and  divinity,  are  under  the  species  of  bread  and 
"  wine ;  but  the  body  indeed  under  the  species  of  bread, 
"  and  the  blood  under  the  species  of  wine,  by  the  force  of 
"the  words;  but  the  body  itselfunder  the  species  of  wine,  and 
"  the  blood  under  the  species  of  bread,  and  the  soul  under 
"  both,  by  the  force  of  that  natural  connection  and  concom- 
"  itancy  whereby  the  parts  of  Christ  our  Lord,  ivho  hath 
"  now  risen  from  the  dead,  to  die  no  more,  (Eom.  vi.  9,) 
"  are  united  together :  and  the  divinity,  furthermore,  on 
"  account  of  the  admirable  hypostatical  union  thereof  with 
"  his  body  and  soul."  {Council  of  Trent,  xiii.  Session,  ch.  iii.) 

"  In  heaven  the  whole  humanity  is  united  to  the  divinity 
"  in  one  hypostasis,  or  person,  and  it  were  impious,  there- 
"  fore,  to  suppose  that  the  body  of  Christ,  which  is  con- 
"  tained  in  the  sacrament,  is  separated  from  his  divinity." 

"  The  pastor,  however,  will  not  fail  to  observe,  that  in 
"  the  sacrament  all  are  not  contained  after  the  same  man- 
"  ner,  or  by  the  same  efficacy  :  Some  things,  we  say,  the 
"  efficacy  of  consecration  accomplishes ;  for  as  the  words 
"  of  consecration  effectuate  what  they  signify,  sacred  wri- 
"  ters  usually  say,  that  whatever  the  form  expresses,  is 
"  contained  in  the  sacrament  by  virtue  of  the  sacrament ; 
"  and  hence,  could  we  suppose  any  one  thing  to  be  entirely 
"  separated  from  the  rest,  the  sacrament,  in  their  opinion, 
"  would  be  found  to  contain  solely  what  the  form  ex- 
"  presses.  But  some  things  are  contained  in  the  sacra- 
"  ment,  because  united  to  those  expressed  in  the  form; 
"  for  instance,  the  words — This  is  my  body — v^hich  com- 
"  prise  the  form  used  to  consecrate  the  bread,  signify  the 
"  body  of  the  Lord,  and  hence  the  body  of  the  Lord  is 
"  contained  in  the  Eucharist  by  virtue  of  the  sacrament. 
"  As,  however,  to  the  body  are  united  his  blood,  his  soul, 
"  his  divinity,  they  too  must  be  found  to  co-exist  in  the 
"  sacrament :  not,  however,  by  virtue  of  the  consecration, 
"  but  by  virtue  of  the  union  that  subsists  between  them 
"  and  his  body ;  and  this  theologians  express  by  the  word 
"  concomitance.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  Christ,  whole  and 
"  entire,  ...  is  contained  under  either  species ;  so  that  as 
"  under  the  species  of  bread,  are  contained  not  only  the 
"  body,  but  also  the  blood  and  Christ  entire,  so  in  like 


Exainin'itioti  of  Proofs  of  the  Real  Presence.      169 

the  animal  to  whieli  it  belonged  has  been  slain.  Sliould  a 
physician  prescribe  for  Cardinal  Wiseman  the  eating  of 
some  particular  kind  of  flesh, — the  flesh  of  the  lamb,  for 
example,  as  a  health-giving  diet,  the  thought  would  never 
enter  his  mind,  that  the  act  prescribed  was,  seizing  upon 
a  living  lamb,  and  tearing  his  quivering  flesh  from  his 
body,  and  so  feeding  upon  living  flesh.  That  is  not  the 
way  in  which  men  ever  .eat  flesh ;  unless  m  some  rare  in- 
stances, to  be  met  with  among  the  most  degraded  canni- 
bals. (2)  Christ,  throughout  the  discourse  speaks  of 
'*  eating  his  flesh  "  and  "  drinking  his  blood  "  as  separate 
acts,  to  be  separately  performed.  The  intimate  union  of 
flesh  and  blood  is  characteristic  of  life  : — their  separation 
one  from  the  other  is  characteristic  of  death. 

In  the  words  of  institution  our  Lord  says — "  This  is  my 
body  which  is  broken  for  you,"  (1  Cor.  xi.  24),  and, — 
"This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament  which  is  shed 
for  many."  (Matt.  xxvi.  28.)  A  broken  body  is  not  a 
living,  but  a  dead  body.  Shed  blood  is  not  living  but 
dead  blood. 

The  inspired  record  of  our  Lord's  death,  as  given  by 
the  four  evangelists,  is  not  in  the  same  words,  but  it  is 
substantially  one  record.  "  Jesus,  when  he  had  cried 
again  with  a  loud  voice,  yielded  up  the  ghost."  (Matt, 
xxvii.  50.)  "  And  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  and 
gave  up  the  ghost."  (Mark  xv.  37.)  "And  when  Jesus 
had  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  he  said,  Father,  into  thy 
hands  I  commend  my  spirit :  and  having  said  thus,  he 
gave  up  the  ghost."  (Luke  xxiii.  46.)  "And  he  bowed 
his  head,  and  gave  up  the  ghost."  (Jno.  xix.  30.)  Turn 
now  to  the  dying  prayer  of  the  martyr  Stephen — "  And 
they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon  God,  and  saying,  Lord 
Jesus,  receive  my  spirit."  (Acts  vii.  59.)  The  prayer  is 
almost  word  for  word,  the  dying  prayer  of  our  Lord  as 
recorded  by  Luke,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend 
my  spirit."  Our  Lord's  death  upon  the  Cross  was  a 
natural  death,  just  like  that  of  any  other  man,  and  con- 
sisted, essentially,  in  the  separation  of  his  soul  from  his 
body. 

During  the  "  three  days  "  his  dead  bodv  lay  in  the  tomb  of 
8 


170  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Joseph  of  Arimathea,  his  human  soul  was  not  present 
with  that  body.  This  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  p.  50,  teaches  as  emphatically  as  we  do,  though  on 
different  grounds ;  for,  explaining  the  words  of  the  Creed, 
"  He  descended  into  hell,"  it  says,  "  immediately  after  the 
"  death  of  Christ,  his  soul  descended  into  hell — (hell  here 
''signifies  those  secret  abodes  in  which  are  detained  the 
"souls  that  have  not  been  admitted  to  the  regions  of 
"bliss,  p.  51)  and  dwelt  there  while  his  body  remained  in 
"  the  grave."  The  dead  body  of  Christ,  then,  like  the 
dead  body  of  any  other  person,  was  a  body  from  which 
the  soul  was  separated.  At  his  resurrection  his  soul 
came  back  to  his  body  again, — and  it  was  then  no  longer 
a  dead  body.  His  resurrection  consisted,  essentially 
in  the  return  of  his  soul  to  his  body. 

What  our  Lord  says,  in  instituting  the  supper  is — 
"  This  is  my  body  broken," — "  this  is  my  blood  shed," — 
and  at  Capernaum — "except  ye  eat  my  flesh" — he  is 
speaking  evidently  of  himself  as  slain, — of  his  dead  body 
and  blood : — These  words  then,  understood  literally,  may 
prove  transubstantiation  ;  i.  e.,  that  the  lifeless  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  present  in  the  Eucharist;  but  so  far 
are  they  from  furnishing  any  ground  for  the  operation  of 
concomitance,  and  so  for  the  presence  of  his  soul  and 
divinity,  they  expressly  exclude  it :  —  it  is  the  union 
between  soul  and  body  which  constitutes  life  upon  which 
concomitance  is  founded,  and  the  body  present  is  a 
"  broken,"  a  slain,  a  lifeless  body. 

Understanding  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  as 
the  Council  of  Trent  has  defined  it  in  the  Canon  quoted  at 
the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  we  ask  the  reader  to  note 
the  fact,  that  Romish  writers  do  not  pretend  to  give  any 
direct  scriptural  proof  of  it.  They  demand  that  we  re- 
ceive it  as  a  philosophical  inference,  on  the  ground  of  con- 
comitance, from  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  which 
last,  they  do  claim  to  prove  from  Scj-ipture. 

Now,  if  the  Scriptures  be  so  interpreted  as  to  teach 
transubstantiation, — the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ;  just  as  distinctly  as  they  teach  that  presence, 
they  teach  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  present  are 


Examination  of  Proof  a  of  the  Real  Presence.      171 

his  dead  body  and  blood.  As  tlie  operation  of  concomi- 
tance is  based  upon  the  living  character  of  the  body,  it 
must  be  powerless  here : — and  so,  the  wondrous  temple  in 
which  the  Romanist  has  enshrined  the  host  as  an  object  of 
divine  worship,  is  found  to  be  but  "the  baseless  fabric  of 
a  vision ;"  and  the  wondrous  character  of  the  host, — 
containing  a  complete  Christ  in  its  every  particle,  turns 
out,  a  mere  philosophical  conclusion  with  its  principal 
premise  false. 


172  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 


CHAPTEE    VI. 

COMMUNION    UNDER    ONE    SPECIES. 

§61.  Statement  of  the  doctrine.    ?  62.  History  of  the  doctrine.    §63   Doctrine  of 
Scripture,    g  04.  Rome's  appeal  to  Scripture.    §  C5.  1  Cor.  xi.  27. 

§  61.  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

"  The  Holy  Synod  ....  declares  and  teaches,  that  lay- 
"  men,  and  clerics  when  not  consecrating,  are  not  obliged, 
"  by  any  divine  precept,  to  receive  the  sacrament  of  the 
"  Eucharist  under  both  species  ;  and  that  neither  can  it 
"  by  any  means  be  doubted,  without  injury  to  faith,  that 
"  communion  under  either  species  is  sufficient  for  them 
"  unto  salvation.  For,  although  Christ,  the  Lord,  in  the 
"  Last  Supper,  instituted  and  delivered  to  the  Apostles, 
"  this  venerable  sacrament  in  the  species  of  bread  and 
"  wine  ;  not  therefore  do  that  institution  and  delivery  tend 
"  thereunto,  that  all  the  faithful  of  the  Church  be  bound, 
"  by  the  institution  of  the  Lord,  to  receive  both  species." 

"  It  furthermore  declares,  that  this  power  has  ever  been 
"  in  the  Church,  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  sacra- 
"  ments,  their  substance  being  unchanged,  it  may  ordain, 
"  or  change  what  things  soever  it  may  judge  most  expedi- 
"  ent,  for  the  profit  of  those  who  receive,  or  for  the  vene- 
"  ration  of  the  said  sacraments,  according  to  the  difference 
"  of  circumstances,  times  and  places.  And  this  the  Apos- 
"  tie  seems  not  obscurely  to  have  intimated,  when  he  says  : 
" '  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  as  of  the  ministers  of 
"  Christ,  and  the  dispensers  of  the  mysteries  of  God.'  (1 
"  Cor.  iv.  1.)  And  indeed  it  is  sufficiently  manifest  that 
"  he  himself  exercised  this  power,  as  in  many  other 
"  things,  so  in  regard  of  this  very  sacrament ;  when,  after 
"  having  ordained  certain  things  touching  the  use  thereof, 


CommiDiion  under  One  Species.  173 

"  ho  says :  '  The  rest  I  will  sot  in  order  wlion  I  come'  (1 
"  Cor.  xi.  3-i.)  Wherefore,  holy  mother  Church,  knowing 
"  this  her  authority  in  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
"  ments,  although  the  use  of  both  species  has,  from  the 
"  beginning  of  the  Christian  religion,  not  been  unfrequent, 
"yet,  in  progress  of  time,  that  custom  having  been 
"  already  very  widely  changed,  she,  induced  by  weighty 
"  and  just  reasons,  has  approved  of  this  custom  of  com- 
"  municating  under  one  species,  and  decreed  that  it  was  to 
"  be  held  as  a  law  ;  which  it  is  not  lawful  to  reprobate,  or 
"  to  change  at  pleasure,  without  the  authority  of  the 
"  Church  itself."     (Ch.  iii.) 

"  Canon  I.  If  any  one  saith,  that,  by  the  precept  of  God, 
"  or  by  necessity  of  salvation,  all  and  each  of  the  faithful 
"of  Christ  ought  to  receive  both  species  of  the  most  holy 
*'  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist :  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  II.  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  Holy  Catholic 
"  Church  was  not  induced,  by  just  causes  and  reasons,  to 
"  communicate  under  the  species  of  bread  only,  laymen, 
"  and  also  clerics  when  not  consecrating ;  let  him  be  ana- 
"  thema."     {Council  of  Trent,  Session  xxi.) 

The  decree,  by  which  communion  under  one  species  was 
established,  referred  to  above,  was  that  of  the  Council  of 
Constance,  which  met  A.  D.  1414.  The  above  quoted  de- 
crees and  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent  were  adopted 
July  16th,  1562. 

Let  the  reader  remark,  here, — 

1.  The  Council  of  Trent  expressly  admits,  that  "Christ, 
the  Lord,  in  the  Last  Supper,  instituted,  and  delivered  to 
the  Apostles,  this  venerable  sacrament  in  the  species  of 
bread  and  wine,"  and  further,  that  "  the  use  of  both 
species,  has,  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  religion, 
not  been  unfrequent  " 

2.  That  the  denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  was  made,  not 
directly  on  the  authority  of  Scripture;  but  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church, — an  authority  which  she  claims — 
"  in  the  dispensation  of  the  sacraments,  their  substance 
being  unchanged,  to  ordain,  or  change  what  things  soever 
she  may  judge  most  expedient  for  the  profit  of  those  wlio 
receive,  or  for  the  veneration  of  the  said  sacraments :" — 


174  TJiC  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Siqjper. 

of  course,  assuming  that  tliis  change  does  not  affect  "  the 
substance  of  the  sacrament." 

3.  This  claim  on  behalf  of  the  Church,  the  Council  of 
Trent  rests  upon  1  Cor.  iv.  1  and  1  Cor.  xi.  34.  . 

1  Cor.  iv.  1  is — "  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us  as  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  and  the  dispensers  (stewards,  Au. 
Ver.)  of  the  mysteries  of  Cod."  The  Council  appealed  to 
this  passage,  because  they  interpreted  the  word  musterion 
(mysteries)  in  the  sense  of  sacraments,  a  sense  which  it 
never  has  in  the  New  Testament.  The  mysteries  of 
which  Paul  here  speaks  were,  evidently,  those  before  men- 
tioned in  ch.  ii.,  ver.  7.  *'  For  we  speak  the  wisdom  of 
God  in  a  mystery,  even  the  hidden  wisdom,  which  God 
ordained  before  the  world  unto  our  glory."  "  The  wisdom 
of  God  in  a  mystery  "  is  here  equivalent  to  "  the  hidden 
wisdom:" — and  the  word  mystery  is  used  to  mean,  a  truth 
not  obvious ;  which  would  never  become  known  except  by 
direct  revelation.  These  mysteries  Paul  further  describes 
in  vers.  9,  10,  in  the  words, — "  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear 
heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the 
things  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him. 
But  God  hath  revealed  them  unto  us  by  his  Spirit :  for 
the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things  of 
God."  Correctly  interpreted  this  passage  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  matter  before  us. 

1  Cor.  xi.  34  is — "And  the  rest  will  I  set  in  order  when 
I  come."  On  the  Council's  citation  of  this  text,  we 
remark, — 

1st.  That  Paul,  the  Apostle,  specially  called  of  God, 
and  inspired,  to  fit  him  for  the  work,  possessed  authority 
to  write  Scripture  and  regulate  church  government  and 
order,  proves  that  a  General  Council  possesses  the  same 
authority,  we  utterly  deny. 

2d.  The  Council  of  Trent  teaches  that  an  ordinance, 
claiming  the  authority  of  a  sacrament,  must  be  "  instituted 
by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord;"  (vii.  Session,  Can.  1,)  and  does 
not  pretend  to  possess  authority  to  make  changes  which 
affect  "  the  substance  "  of  a  sacrament.  Paul,  unques- 
tionably, treats  the  matter  under  consideration  as  belong- 
ing to  the  substance  of  this  sacrament, — in  the  only  sense 


History  of  this  Doctrine.  175 

in  which  a  sacrament  has  a  substance;  for  among  the 
particulars  which  he  declares  he  "  had  received  of  the 
Lord,  and  delivered "  to  the  Church  at  Corinth  is  that 
"After  the  same  manner,"  i.  e.,.the  maimer  in  which  he 
had  taken  the  bread  and  given  it — "  he  took  the  cup, 
when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in 
remembrance  of  me."  (1  Cor.  xi.  25.)  Paul  claims  no 
authority  to  make  a  change  in  the  Eucharist  in  this 
particular, — he  treats  it  as  settled  by  the  authority  of  the 
Lord, — he  treats  the  giving  of  the  cup  to  the  communi- 
cant as  belonging  to  "the  substance  "  of  the  sacrament  as 
truly  as  the  giving  of  the  bread  does  : — and  so,  expressly 
excludes  it  from  the  things  referred  to  in  his  words.  "And 
the  rest  will  I  set  in  order  when  I  come." 


§  G2.  History  of  this  Doctrine. 

"  A  circumstance  which  principally  influenced  the  church 
"  in  establishing  this  practice,  means  were  to  be  devised  to 
"  crush  the  heresy  which  denied  that  Christ,  whole  and 
"  entire,  is  contained  under  either  species,  and  asserted 
"  that  the  body  is  contained  under  the  species  of  bread 
"  without  the  blood,  and  the  blood  under  the  species  of 
"  wine  without  the  body.  This  object  was  attained  by 
"  communion  under  the  species  of  bread  alone,  which 
"  places,  as  it  were,  sensibly  before  our  eyes,  the  truth  of 
"  the  Catholic  faith."  {Catechism  of  Council  of  Trent, 
p.  172.) 

"  Public  communion  was,  indeed,  usually  administered 
in  the  first  ages  under  both  forms.  The  faithful,  however, 
had  the  privilege  of  dispensing  with  the  cup,  and  of  par- 
taking only  of  the  bread,  until  the  time  of  Pope  Gelasius, 
in  the  fifth  century,  when  this  general,  but  hitherto 
optional,  practice  of  receiving  under  both  kinds  was 
enforced  as  a  law  for  the  following  reasons." 

"  The  Manichean  sect  abstained  from  the  cup  on  the 
erroneous  assumption,  that  the  use  of  wine  was  sinful. 
Pope  Gelasius,  in  order  to  detect  and  condemn  the  error 
of  those  sectaries,  left  it  no  longer  optional  with  the  faith- 


176  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

fal  to  receive  under  one  or  both  forms,  but  ordained  that 
all  should  communicate  under  both  kinds." 

"  This  law  continued  in  force  for  several  ages,  but  to- 
ward the  thirteenth  century,  for  various  causes,  it  had 
gradually  grown  into  disuse,  with  the  tacit  approval  of 
the  Church.  The  Council  of  Constance,  which  convened 
in  1414,  established  a  law  requiring  the  faithful  to  com- 
municate under  the  form  of  bread  only ;  and  in  taking  this 
step,  the  Council  was  actuated  by  reasons  of  propriety  and 
of  religion."  {Gibbons'  Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p.  347.) 

On  the  above  quotations  let  the  reader  remark  : — 

1.  Archbishop  Gibbons  states,  that  "  public  communion 
was,  usually  administered  in  the  first  ages  under  both 
forms ; "  and  this  order  of  things  continued  "  until  the  time 
of  Pope  Gelasius."  Gelasius  I.  was  elected  bishop  of  Rome, 
— Pope,  as  Dr.  Gibbons  calls  him, — A.  D.  492.  And  he 
"  in  order  to  detect  and  condemn  the  errors  of  the  Mani- 
cheans,  left  it  no  longer  optional  with  the  faithful  to  receive 
under  one  or  both  forms,  but  ordained  that  all  should 
communicate  under  both  kinds."  A  more  accurate  state- 
ment of  the  history  of  this  matter  would  be, — The  Church 
continued  to  observe  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper,  as  in- 
stituted by  our  Lord,  and  administered  by  the  Apostles, 
till  the  Manichean  sect  arose,  and  amongst  their  other 
heretical  practices,  introduced  communion  under  the  species 
of  bread  alone,  a  practice  which  was  revived — though  for 
a  different  reason — by  the  Council  of  Constance  in  1414. 
Bishop  Gelasius,  in  the  fifth  century,  condemned  this 
practice  of  the  Manicheans,  and  restored  communion  under 
both  species,  as  it  had  existed  from  the  beginning. 

"  The  Manicheans,  who  were,  properly  speaking,  a 
philosophical  sect  in  Persia,  held  wine  to  be  blood,  or 
rather,  the  gall,  that  is  the  poison,  of  their  supposed  evil 
principle,  and  prohibited  the  use  of  it  among  the  elect : — 
and  hence,  the  Manichean  Christians,  who  had  transferred 
the  Persian  philosophy  into  their  Christianity,  and  framed 
their  creed  in  conformity  therewith,  did  not  so  much  as 
permit  the  use  of  wine  in  the  Lord's  Si\-pper." (Michaelis  on 
the  Law  of  Moses,  Book  iv.  eh.  3,  pt.  2.)  From  this  ac- 
count, the  reader  will  see,  that  the  controversy  respecting 


Hifitorij  of  this  Doctrine.  177 

the  use  of  tlio  cup,  in  the  fifth  century,  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence. 

2.  Archbishop  Gibbons  states*  further,  "  that  this  kiw 
(of  Gek\sius)  continued  in  force  for  several  ages,  but  to- 
wards the  thirteenth  century,  for  various  causes,  it  had 
gradually  grown  into  disuse,  with  the  tacit  approval  of 
the  Church."  This  gradual  disuse  of  communion  under 
both  kinds,  is  fully  explained,  we  think,  by  the  history  of 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  On  this  point,  how- 
ever, let  the  reader  judge,  after  reading  the  following  brief 
summary  of  that  history. 

'^  For  a  long  time  there  was  no  formal  declaration  of  the 
mind  of  the  Church  on  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist.  At  length,  in  the  first  half  of  the  ninth 
century,  a  discussion  on  the  point  was  raised  by  the  Abbot 
of  Corvei,  Paschasius  Radbertus,  and  Batramnus,  a  learned 
monk  of  the  same  convent ;  they  exchanged  several  violent 
controversial  writings,  De  Sanguine  et  Corpore  Domini, 
and  the  most  distinguished  men  of  the  time  took  part  in 
the  discussion.  Paschasius  maintained  that  the  bread  and 
wine  are,  in  the  act  of  consecration,  transformed  by  the 
omnipotence  of  God  into  that  very  body  of  Christ  which 
was  once  born  of  Mary,  nailed  to  the  cross,  and  raised 
from  the  dead.  According  to  this  conception,  nothing  re- 
mains of  the  bread  and  wine  but  the  outward  form,  the 
taste  and  the  smell ;  while  Eatramnus  would  only  allow 
that  there  is  some  change  in  the  bread  and  wine  them- 
selves, but  granted  that  an  actual  transformation  of  their 
power  and  their  efficacy  takes  place.  The  greater  accord- 
ance of  the  first  view  with  the  credulity  of  the  age,  its  love 
of  the  wonderful  and  magical,  as  well  as  with  the  natural 
desire  for  the  utmost  possible  nearness  to  Christ,  in  order 
to  be  unfailingly  saved  by  him,  the  interest  of  the  priest- 
hood to  add  lustre  to  a  rite  which  enhanced  their  own 
office,  and  the  apparently  logical  character  of  the  inference, 
that  where  the  power,  according  to  universal  admission, 
was  changed,  there  must  be  a  change  also  of  the  substance; 
the  result  of  all  these  concurring  influences  was,  that  when 
the  views  of  Ratramnus  were  in  substance  revived  by  Be- 
rengariu?.  Canon  of  Tours,  in  opposition  to  Lanfranc.  Bishop 
8* 


178  TIlc  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

of  Canterbury,  and  Cardinal  Humbert,  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation,  as  it  came  to  be  called,  triumphed,  and 
was  officially  approved  by  the  Council  of  Eome  in  1079. 
In  the  fourth  Lateran  Council  at  Rome,  1215,  under  In- 
nocent III,  Transubstantiation  was  declared  to  be  an 
article  of  faith ;  and  it  has  continued  to  be  so  held  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  to  the  present  day."  [Chambers 
Encyclopedia,  Art.  Lords  Supper.) 

"  The  Council  of  Constance,  which  convened  in  1414, 
established  a  law  requiring  the  faithful  to  communicate 
under  the  form  of  bread  only,"  writes  Archbishop  Gib- 
bons. 

"  The  not  unnatural  result  of  the  action  of  the  fourth 
Lateran  Council,  was  to  generate  very  widely  the  idea 
of  the  non-necessity  of  receiving  in  both  kinds.  The 
dogma  of  transubstantiation  and  the  practice  of  half-com- 
munion v/ent  thus  hand  in  hand ;  mutually  supporting 
and  justifying  each  other.  But  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
the  casual  meeting  of  Jacobel  de  Mysa  and  John  de  Ley- 
den,  led  to  results  which  then  were  little  anticipated. 
These  men,  zealous  and  learned  and  active  clergymen, 
were  devout  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  were 
earnest  believers  in  transubstantiation.  Like  most  mem- 
bers of  that  church,  they  imagined  that  our  Lord's  dis- 
course in  the  vi.  John  was  designed  to  apply  to  the  sacra- 
ment. In  conversing  on  that  remarkable  discourse,  they 
were  impressed  with  the  fact  that  it  describes  the  drinking 
of  the  blood  as  being  as  necessary  as  the  eating  of  the 
flesh.  They  dwell  on  the  words,  '  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh 
of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life 
in  you  ;  whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
hath  eternal  life.'  In  these  words  they  observed  that  they 
could  have  no  life  unless  they  drank  the  blood  as  well  as 
ate  the  flesh.  And  the  promise  of  life  was  only  to  those 
who  dra7ik  the  blood,  as  well  as  ate  the  flesh.  The  awful 
warning  is  against  those  who  do  not  receive  both.  The 
gracious  promise  is  only  to  those  who  receive  both.  Ap- 
plying this  language,  as  these  men  did,  to  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  at  once  drew  the  inference  that 
the  cup  was  as  necessary  as  the  bread — that  there  was  no 


History  of  this  Doctrine.  179 

promise  to  h:\lf-communion — that  in  order  to  have  eternal 
life  they  must  commune  in  both  kinds." 

"  For  this  they  found  confirmation  in  the  language  of 
the  Apostle,  where  he  alludes  to  the  sacrament, — '  As  oft 
as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come.'  '  But  let  a  man  examine  him- 
self, and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that 
cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth 
and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  discerning  the 
Lord's  body.'  " 

"  The  inference  from  this  language  is,  that  one  kind  is 
as  essential  as  the  other — that  both  are  essential  to  the 
integrity  of  communion — and  that  whatever  be  the  bless- 
ings, privileges  and  graces  connected  with  this  sacrament, 
they  are  connected  with  it  only  as  received  in  both  kinds, 
drinking  of  the  cup  as  well  as  eating  the  bread.  These 
men,  under  this  conviction,  taught  that  it  was  necessary 
to  salvation  that  all  communicants  should  receive  the 
bread,  and  then  receive  the  cup,  and  they  immediately  in- 
troduced into  the  churches  at  Prague  the  administration 
of  the  sacrament  in  both  kinds.  The  city  of  Prague,  and 
all  Bohemia,  soon  declared  in  favor  of  the  restoration  of 
the  cup.  This  awakened  the  whole  energies  and  resent- 
ment of  Rome,  And  the  unhappy  resolve  of  the  Papal 
court  to  put  down  this  beginning  of  the  Beformation,  not 
by  the  holy  weapons  of  Christian  argument,  but  by  the 
brute  force  of  arms,  kindled  the  flames  of  a  civil  war  of  a 
century's  continuance.  It  was  in  the  midst  of  this  con- 
troversy that  the  Council  of  Constance  was  convened — a 
council  celebrated  for  that  decree  by  which  it  claims  for 
the  Church  of  Rome  the  right  to  go  against  the  words  of 
the  Lord,  to  alter  the  original  institution  of  Christ,  and  to 
depart  from  the  acknowledged  practice  and  teaching  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  Primitive  Church."  [Sei/mours  Evenings 
with  the  Romanists.) 

With  this  brief  history  of  the  doctrine  of  communion 
under  the  form  of  bread  alone  before  him,  the  reader  will 
understand  the  declaration  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  that  "  a  circumstance  which  principally  influ- 
'•  enced  the  Church  in  establishing  this  practice  (was,  that) 


180  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  means  were  to  be  devised  to  crush  the  heresy  which 
''  denied  that  Clirist,  whole  and  entire,  is  contained  under 
"either  species."  It  was  not  because  they  understood 
God's  Word  to  teach  the  doctrine,  but  to  crush  out  all 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  that  the 
Church  denied  the  cup  to  the  laity. 

§  G3.  Doctrine  of  Scripture. 

"  And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and 
blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and 
said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup, 
and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye 
all  of  it ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  (Matt.  xxvi. 
26-28.) 

"  And  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed, 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  them,  and  said.  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  gave  it  to  them ;  and  they  all  drank  of 
it.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  new 
testament,  which  is  shed  for  many."  (Mark  xiv.  22-24.) 

"  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it, 
and  gave  unto  them,  saying.  This  is  my  body,  which  is 
given  for  you;  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise 
also  the  cup  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new 
testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for  you."  (Luke 
xxii.  19,  20.) 

"  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord,  that  which  I  also 
delivered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night 
in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread ;  and  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat;  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  broken  for  you ;  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup, 
when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  my  blood ;  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  re- 
membrance of  me."  (1  Cor.  xi.  23-25.) 

In  these  four  separate  and  independent  accounts,  let 
the  reader  notice : — 

(1)  That  they  all  agree  in  stating  "  that  our  Lord  insti- 


Bojnc's  Appeal  to  Scripture.  181 

tutcd  this  sacrament  m  both  kinds, — that  He  administered 
it  in  both  kinds, — that  the  apostles  received  it  in  both 
kinds." 

(2)  That  he  gave  both  alike,  with  a  command  to  eat  the 
one,  and  drink  the  other ;  emphasizing  the  command  in 
the  case  of  the  cup  with  the  words,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it :" 
and  ]Mark  tjlls  us,  that  on  this  occasion,  "  they  all  drank 
of  it." 

(3)  "  This  sacrament  was  originally  instituted  by  our 
Lord,  in  order  to  be  the  memorial  of  his  dying  love ;  to 
be  taken  in  loving  remembi'ance  of  the  breaking  of  his 
body  and  the  shedding  of  his  blood  on  the  cross ;  and  for 
the  Church  of  Eome  to  take  away  the  memorial  of  that 
precious  blood — that  blood  of  which  we  read  that  '  it  is 
the  blood  that  maketh  atonement  for  the  soul,'  and  'with- 
out shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins,'  and 
'  we  are  redeemed — by  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,'  and 
'  his  blood  cleanseth  from  all  sin,'  and  '  Thou  hast  re- 
deemed us  to  God  by  thy  blood,'  and  *  They  washed  their 
robes  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,' 
and,  '  The  Church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased  with 
his  own  blood ;'  for  the  Church  of  Rome  to  withhold  the 
memorial  of  this  precious  blood  in  that  very  sacrament  in 
which  Jesus  Christ  so  especially  appointed  it,  is  an  act  of 
impiety  and  sacrilege  against  Christ's  own  institution, 
which  has  no  parallel  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Church." 
{Seymour  8  Evenings  ivith  the  Rommiists,  p.  373.) 

§  64.  Borne  s  appeal  to  Scripture. 

I.  "  But  neither  is  it  rightly  gathered,  from  that  dis- 
"  course  which  is  in  the  sixth  of  John, — however  according 
"  to  the  various  interpretations  of  holy  Fathers  and  Doc- 
"  tors  it  is  to  bo  understood, — that  the  communion  of  both 
"  species  was  enjoined  by  the  Lord  :  for  he  who  said,  Ex- 
"  cept  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his 
"  blood,  ye  shall  not  have  life  in  you  (v.  54),  also  said  :  He 
"  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever  (v.  59) ;  and  he 
"  who  said,  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood 
"  hath  everlasting  life  (v.  55),  also  said ;  The  bread  that  I 


182  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  will  give  liim  is  my  flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world  (v.  52) ; 
"  and,  in  fine,  he  who  said,  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and 
"  drinketh  my  blood,  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  him  (v.  57), 
"  said,  nevertheless,  He  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  live 
"  for  ever  (v.  59}."  {Council  of  Trent,  XXI.  Session, 
ch.  I.) 

For  a  full  answer  to  this  appeal  to  our  Lord's  discourse 
at  Capernaum  in  justification  of  half  communion,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  ch.  ii.,  where  the  whole  discourse  is 
examined. 

II.  "  It  seems  clear  from  the  text,  that  when  Christ,  on 
the  day  of  his  resurrection,  took  bread,  and  blessed  and 
brake,  and  gave  it  to  Cleopas  and  the  other  disciple,  whose 
guest  he  was  at  Emmaus,  on  his  doing  which  their  eyes 
were  opened,  and  they  knew  him,  and  he  vanished  out  of 
their  sight,  (Luke  xxiv.  30,  31) ;  he  administered  the  holy 
communion  to  them  under  the  form  of  bread  alone.  In 
like  manner,  it  is  written  of  the  baptized  converts  of  Jeru- 
salem, that  they  were  persevering  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles,  and  in  the  communication  of  the  breaking  of 
bread  and  in  prayer,  (Acts  ii.  42) ;  and  of  the  religious  meet- 
ing at  Troas ;  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were 
assembled  to  break  bread,  (Acts  xx.  7),  without  any  men- 
tion of  the  other  species.  These  passages  plainly  signify- 
that  the  apostles  were  accustomed,  sometimes,  at  least,  to 
give  the  sacrament  under  one  kind  alone."  {Milners  End 
of  Controversy,  p.  240.) 

For  an  examination  of  Acts  ii.  42  and  xx.  7,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  §  3.  On  Luke  xxiv.  30,  31,  we  re- 
mark : — 

(1)  There  is  no  good  reason  for  regarding  this  as  a 
record  of  an  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  From 
Matt.  xiv.  19 :  ''  And  he  took  the  five  loaves  and  the  two 
fishes,  and  looking  up  to  heaven,  he  blessed  and  brake, 
and  gave  the  loaves  to  his  disciples,  and  the  disciples  to 
the  multitude,"  we  learn  that  his  common  practice,  when 
acting  as  "  master  of  a  feast"  was  to  do  just  what  Luke 
says  he  did  here — "  he  took  bread,  and  blessed  it,  and 
gave  it  to  them."  If  these  words  prove  this  to  have  been 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  same  words  in  Matt.  xiv.  19,  prove 


JRom3s  Appeal  to  Scripture,  183 

the  feeding  of  the  live  thousand  to  have  been  the  same. 
Besides  this,  when  Cleopas  speaks  of  it  afterwards, 
he  speaks  of  it  in  the  words  commonly  used  to  desig- 
nate an  ordinary  meal,  as  the  "  breaking  of  bread," 
V.  35.' 

(2)  If  we  adopt  Dr.  Milncr's  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage, it  proves  too  much  for  the  Romanist.  In  his  view, 
the  Eucharist  is  a  sacrifice  as  well  as  a  sacrament,  and 
the  blood  is  essential  to  the  sacrifice.  Now,  if  this  was 
the  Eucharist,  and  the  mention  of  bread  alone,  proves  that 
bread  alone  constituted  the  sacrament,  it  proves  just  as 
clearly  that  bread  alone  constituted  the  sacrifice. 

III.  "Our  Redeemer,  it  is  true,  has  said:  'Drink  ye 
all  of  this.'  But  it  should  be  remembered  that  these 
words  were  addressed  not  to  the  people  at  large,  but  only 
to  the  Apostles,  who  alone  were  also  commanded,  on  the 
same  occasion,  to  consecrate  his  body  and  blood  in  remem- 
brance of  Him.  Now  we  have  no  more  right  to  infer  that 
the  fixithfal  are  obliged  to  drink  of  the  cup,  because  the 
Apostles  were  commanded  to  drink  of  it,  than  we  have  to 
suppose  that  the  laity  are  required  or  allowed  to  conse- 
crate the  bread  and  wine,  because  the  power  of  doing  so 
was  at  the  last  supper  conferred  on  the  Apostles."  {Gib- 
bom  Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p.  344.) 

Archbishop  Gibbons  evidently  refers  to  our  Lord's 
words,  "  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  as  constituting 
the  Apostles  priests,  and  conferring  on  them  the  power  of 
consecrating  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Eucharist;  and  this 
is  the  common  Romish  interpretation.  For  proof  that 
they  have  no  such  meaning  the  reader  is  referred  to 
§71. 

If  the  fact  that  in  the  administration  of  the  cup  our 
Lord  addressed  himself  to  his  apostles  only,  they  alone 
being  present  when  he  said,  '  Drink  ye  all  of  it,'  proves 
that  the  communion  of  the  cup  may  properly  be  confined  to 
the  clergy  :  the  same  fact  with  respect  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  bread,  must  prove  the  same  thing  regarding  it ; 
and  so,  the  argument  if  it  justifies  the  withholding  the 
cup  from  the  laity,  justifies,  just  as  clearly,  the  withhold- 
ing of  the  communion  altogether. 


184  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

§C5.    ICor.  xi.  27. 

"Another  more  important  passage  for  communion  under 
either  kind  he  (Bishop  Porteus)  entirely  overlooks,  when 
the  Apostle  says,  "  Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  or 
drink  this  chalice  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord."  (1  Cor.  xi.  27.)  True 
it  is,  that  in  the  English  Bible,  the  text  is  here  corrupted, 
the  conjunctive  and  being  put  for  the  disjunctive  or,  con- 
trary to  the  original  Greek,  as  well  as  to  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  to  the  version  of  Beza,  &c.  But  as  his  lordship 
could  not  be  ignorant  of  this  corruption  and  the  im- 
portance of  the  genuine  text,  it  is  inexcusable  in  him  to 
have  passed  it  over  unnoticed."  [Milners  End  of  Contro- 
versy, p.  240.) 

"  Here,  by  saying,  '  eat  or  drink,'  he  (Paul)  manifestly 
shows,  that  it  was  the  practice  in  his  time  to  do  the  one 
or  the  other,  to  receive  either  by  eating  or  drinking.  And 
the  force  of  this  text  is  so  strong  in  favor  of  communion 
in  one  kind  only,  that  in  all  the  Protestant  Bibles,  they 
have  changed  the  word  or  into  and,  contrary  to  the 
original  Greek  from  which  they  translate  it."  {Bishop 
Hay's  "Sincere  Christian," p.  236.) 

On  these  comments,  we  remark — 

(1)  If  Paul's  once  using  the  expression  "  eat  or  drink," 
"  manifestly  shows,  that  it  was  the  practice  in  his  time, 
to  receive  either  by  eating  or  drinking,"  what  shall  we  say 
of  his  using  the  expression  "  eat  and  drink,"  four  times 
over,  in  this  very  passage  ?  Does  not  this  fact  show  four 
times  as  manifestly  that  the  practice  in  his  time  was  to 
receive  by  both  eating  and  drinking?  The  whole  passage 
is — "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup, 
ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Wherefore, 
whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  or  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  so  let  him  eat 
of  that  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup ;  for  he  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation 
to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body."  (1  Cor.  xi. 
26-29.)     In  all  four  of  these  instances  the  word  is — in 


1  Cor.  xL  27.  185 

the  Groek.  hai,  in  the  Vulgate,  ct,  and  in  the  Douay,  as 
in  the  Authorized  Version,  and 

(2)  It  is  not  true,  as  Bishop  Hay  asserts,  that  "  in  all 
Protestant  Bibles,  they  have  changed  the  word  or  into 
and.''  If  the  reader  will  look  at  the  German  and 
French  Bibles  published  by  the  American  Bible  Society — 
and  they  are  the  only  Protestant  versions,  besides  the 
English,  that  I  have  at  hand — he  will  see  that  the  German 
and  French  equivalents  to  the  English  or  are  used  in  this 
passage. 

(3)  If  the  reader  will  consult  Alford, — or  any  other 
critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  in  which  the 
"  various  readings  "  are  given, — he  will  see  that  whilst 
the  weight  of  authority  is  for  the  reading  or,  yet,  the 
reading  kai,  and,  is  not  without  authority  of  ancient 
manuscripts,  amongst  them,  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus, 
the  most  ancient  manuscript  to  which  the  authors  of  our 
English  Version  probably  had  access.  The  only  two 
Codices,  now  regarded  as  more  ancient  than  this,  are  the 
C.  Vaticanus,  in  the  Vatican  library,  and  so,  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  authors  of  our  English  Version,  and  the  C. 
Sinaiticus,  discovered  in  the  present  century. 

(4)  Notwithstanding  this,  we  accept  the  reading  or,  in 
the  place  of  and,  and  hope  to  see  it  introduced  in  the 
revised  version  now  in  preparation  ; — and  we  do  this,  not 
only  because  the  weight  of  critical  authority  is  in  its 
favor,  but  because  the  course  of  the  Apostle's  reasoning 
here,  seems  to  demand  it.  Ver.  26  is — "  As  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's 
death  till  he  come," — i.  e.,  eating  the  bread,  and  drinking 
the  cup,  both  alike  shew  the  Lord's  death — the  broad  is 
hroken,  the  wine  is  poured  out,  is  shed,  for  this  very 
purpose.  Then,  ver.  27,  is  an  inference  from  this  state- 
ment— "  Wherefore,  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  or 
drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord," — i.  e.,  as  the  eating  the 
bread  and  the  drinking  the  cup  have  the  same  significance, 
the  guilt  involved  in  unworthily  doing  the  one  or  the 
other  is  the  same.  For  a  fuller  exposition  of  this  passage, 
see  ch.  iv. 


The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Siq^psr. 


CHAPTER    VII. 


THE  WOESHIP  OF  THE  HOST. 


§66.  The  worship  of  the  Host.  §67.  Dr.  Milner's  defence.  §68.  The  Romanist 
can  never  be  certain  that  his  adoration  of  the  Host  is  not  idolatry.  §69. 
Modern  and  Ancient  Idolatry.  §70.  The  Real  Presence  not  a  doctrine  of  the 
primitive  church. 

§  66.   The  worship  of  the  Host  idolatry. 

"Wherefore,  there  is  no  room  left  for  doubt,  tliat  all 
"  the  faithful  of  Christ  may,  according  to  the  custom  ever 
"  received  in  the  Catholic  Church,  render  in  veneration 
"the  worship  of  latria,  which  is  due  to  the  true  God,  to 
"  this  most  holy  sacrament.  For  not,  therefore,  is  it  the 
"  less  to  be  adored  on  this  account,  that  it  was  instituted 
"  by  Christ,  the  Lord,  in  order  to  be  received ;  for  we 
"  believe  that  same  God  to  be  present  therein,  of  whom 
"  the  eternal  Father,  when  introducing  him  into  the  world, 
"  says :  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  adore  him ; 
"  (Ps.  xcvi.  7)  whom  the  Magi,  falling  down,  adored ; 
"  (Matt.  ii.  11,)  who,  in  fine,  as  the  Scripture  testifies,  was 
"  adored  by  the  Apostles  in  Galilee."  {Council  of  Trent, 
xiii.  Sessio7i,  Ch.  v.) 

"  Canon  VI.  If  any  one  saith,  that,  in  the  holy  sacra- 
"  ment  of  the  Eucharist,  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son  of 
"  God,  is  not  to  be  adored  with  the  worship,  even  external 
"  of  latria ;  and  is,  consequently,  neither  to  be  venerated 
"  with  a  special  festive  solemnity,  nor  to  be  solemnly  borne 
"  about  in  procession,  according  to  the  laudable  and  uni- 
"  versal  rite  and  custom  of  holy  Church;  or,  is  not  to  be 
"  proposed  publicly  to  the  people  to  be  adored,  and  that 
"  the  adorers  thereof  are  idolaters ;  let  him  be  anathema." 
{Council  of  Trent,  xiii  Session.) 


Dr.  Milners  Defense.  187 

In  the  matter  of  worship,  Romish  theologians  distin- 
guisli  between  what  they  term  dulia,  the  reverence  and 
adoration  which  may  properly  be  rendered  to  saints  and 
angels,  and  what  they  term  latria,  which  is  worship  due  to 
God  alone.  In  the  above-quoted  Canon,  the  Council  of 
Trent  decides  that,  "  in  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eu- 
charist, the  only-begotten  Son  is  to  be  adored  with  the 
worship,  even  external  of  latria. 

Idolatry,  (from  Gr.  eidolon,  an  idol,  and  latreia,  worship) 
is  the  giving  to  any  creature  the  adoration  or  worship 
which  is  due  to  God  alone. — "  Idolatry  is  not  only  an  ac- 
counting or  worshipping  that  for  God  which  is  not  God, 
but  it  is  also  a  worshipping  of  the  true  God  in  a  way  un- 
suitable to  his  nature,  and  particularly  by  the  mediation 
of  images  and  corporeal  resemblances."     South. 

Admitting,  by  implication,  the  correctness  of  this  defi- 
nition of  idolatry,  the  Church  of  Bome  justifies  her  wor- 
ship of  tlie  Eucharist  on  the  ground,  that  through  transub- 
stantiation,  and  consequent  concomitance,  Christ,  whole 
and  complete,  is  present  there, — "  the  same  God,"of'  whom 
the  eternal  Father,  when  introducing  him  into  the  world, 
says,  "  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him,"  Now,' 
if  for  any  reason  transubstantiation  has  not  taken  place. — 
either  because  transubstantiation  is  an  invention  of  man  ; 
there  is  no  such  change  ever  occurs  as  a  matter  of  fact ; — 
or,  because,  transubstantiation  is  a  truth,  but  for  some  spe- 
cial reason  it  has  not  been  efiected  ;  then  in  the  Eucharist 
there  is  nothing  but  bread  and  wine,  the  creatures  of  God, 
and  the  worship  rendered  in  that  case  is  idolatry. 

In  Chapter  II.  we  have  shown  that  transubstantiation 
is  an  invention  of  man,  that  no  such  change  as  is  expressed 
by  that  word  ever  occurs  : — and  on  this  ground,  notwith- 
standing the  anathema  pronounced  by  the  Council  of  Trent 
upon  those  who  shall  do  so,  we  charge  the  Church  of 
Rome  with  idolatry  in  the  worship  of  "  the  sacrament  of 
the  Eucharist." 

§G7.  Dr.  Milners  Defense. 

The  only  Romish  writer,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  at- 
tempts to  defend  his  Church  against  the  charge  of  idola- 


188  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

try  in  this  matter,  on  any  other  ground  than  the  assumed 
reahty  of  transubstantiation,  and  the  consequent  presence 
of  "the  complete  Christ "  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Euchar- 
ist is  Dr.  Milner.     He  writes  : — 

"  The  first  of  these  disingenuous  practices  consists  in 
misrepresenting  CathoUcs  3&  worshippers  of  bread  and  wine 
in  the  sacrament,  and  therefore  as  idolaters,  at  the  same 
time  our  adversaries  are  perfectly  aware,  that  we  firmly 
believe,  as  an  article  of  faith,  that  there  is  no  bread 
nor  wine,  but  Christ  alone,  true  God,  as  well  as  man,  pre- 
sent in  it.  Suppose  for  a  moment  we  are  mistaken  in  this 
belief,  the  worst  we  could  be  charged  with  is  an  error,  in 
supposing  Christ  to  be  where  he  is  not ;  and  nothing  but 
uncharitable  calumny,  or  gross  inattention,  could  accuse 
us  of  the  heinous  crime  of  idolatry."  {End  of  Controversy, 
p.  223.) 

Let  us  admit  the  correctness  of  Dr.  Milner's  statement, 
— and  we  do  this  the  more  readily  because  we  believe  it  to 
be  true — that  the  Komanist  believes  that  in  the  Eucharist 
"  there  is  no  bread  nor  wine,  but  Christ  alone,  true  God, 
as  well  as  man,  present ;  "  we  say,  according  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Scripture,  this  will  modify  the  guilt  of  his  act  in 
worshipping  it,  but  it  will  neither  remove  that  guilt  alto- 
gether, nor  will  it  change  essentially  the  character  of  his 
sin. 

Paul,  before  his  conversion,  was  sincere  and  honest  in 
his  belief  that  Jesus  Christ  was  an  impostor,  and  he  acted 
upon  this  belief  in  persecuting  the  followers  of  Jesus.  He 
says  of  himself :  "  I  verily  thought  with  myself,  that  I 
ought  to  do  many  things  contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  Which  things  I  also  did  in  Jerusalem ;  and 
many  of  the  saints  did  I  shut  up  in  prison,  having  received 
authority  from  the  chief  priests ;  and  when  they  were  put 
to  death,  I  gave  my  voice  against  them.  And  I  punished 
them  oft  in  every  synagogue,  and  compelled  them  to  blas- 
pheme ;  and  being  exceedingly  mad  against  them,  I  per- 
secuted them  even  unto  strange  cities."  (Acts  xxvi.  9-11.) 
Yet,  so  far  was  he  from  thinking  that  the  sincerity  of  his 
false  belief,  excused  the  wickedness  of  his  conduct  conse- 
quent thereupon,  that  he  writes,  long   afterwards :  "  For 


The.  Romanist'' s  Adoration  of  the  Host  Idolatnj.   ISO 

I  am  the  least  of  the  Apostles,  and  am  not  meet  to  bo 
called  an  Apostle,  because  I  persecuted  the  Church  of 
God."  (1  Cor.  XV.  9.)  And  again — "  Christ  Jesus  came 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners ;  of  whom  I  am  chief.  How- 
beit,  for  this  cause  I  obtained  mercy,  that  in  me  first, 
Jesus  Christ  might  shew  forth  all  long-sufiering,  for  a 
pattern  to  them  which  should  hereafter  believe  on  him  to 
life  everlasting."  (1  Tim.  i.  15,  16.)  From  these  words 
it  is  evident  that  in  Paul's  estimation,  the  fact  that  he  had 
been  led  into  sin  by  a  sincere  belief  of  an  untruth,  did  not 
absolve  him  from  the  guilt  of  that  sin ;  on  the  contrary, 
he  looked  upon  himself  in  his  salvation  as  "  a  pattern  of 
the  long-suifering  of  God  "  in  his  dealings  with  sinners, — 
nor  did  it  change  essentially  the  character  of  his  sin,  it 
was  still  the  sin  of  "  persecuting  the  Church  of  God." 
"  There  is  a  way,"  says  Solomon,  "which  seerneth  right 
unto  a  man;  but  the  end  thereof  are  the  ways  of  death." 
(Prov.  xiv.  12.)  And  one  of  the  most  terrible  judgments 
God  ever  inflicts  upon  the  sinner  in  this  world  is  that  of 
"judicial  blindness."  "  And  for  this  cause  God  shall  send 
them  strong  delusions,  that  they  should  believe  a  lie ;  that 
they  all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth,  but 
had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness."     (2  Thess,  ii.  11,  12.) 

§  68.   The  Hoinanist  can  never  be  certain  that  his  adora- 
tion of  the  Host  is  not  Idolatry. 

I.  The  Council  of  Trent  declares — "  If  any  one  saith, 
"  that  in  ministers,  when  they  effect  and  confer  the  sacra- 
"  ments  there  is  not  required  the  intention  at  least  of  doing 
"  what  the  Church  does  ;  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council 
of  Trent,  vii.  Session,  Can.  xi.) 

In  order  to  understand  distinctly  what  the  Council  of 
Trent  means  by  "  the  intention  "  in  the  above-quoted  can- 
on, let  the  reader  carefully  consider  the  following  illus- 
tration of  its  meaning. — "  If  any  (Priest)  did  not  intend  to 
"  eff"ect  (consecration),  but  to  practice  some  deception,  i.  e., 
"  if  any  host  remains  upon  the  altar  through  forgetful ness, 
"  or  any  portion  of  wine  ;  or  any  host  remains  hidden 
"  while  the  Priest  intended  to  consecrate  only  that  which 


].90  Tlte  Doctr'me  of  the  Lords  Supper.     . 

"  lie  saw  ;  item,  if  any  Priest  has  before  liim  eleven  hosts, 
"  and  intended  to  consecrate  ten  only,  without  determining 
"  which  ten,  in  these  eases  he  effects  no  consecration,  in- 
"asmuch  as  that  requires  intention."  {Missale  Romanum, 
De  defectibus  in  celebratione  Missarum  occurrentihus.) 

According  to  the  above-quoted  canon,  the  occurrence 
of  transubstantiation  depends  upon  the  intention  of  the 
Priest  at  the  time  he  pronounces  the  words  of  consecration. 
If  he  intends  to  effect  this  change  it  is  effected,  and 
"  Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  "  is  there ;  if  he 
has  no  such  intention,  the  change  does  not  take  place ; 
and  instead  of  "  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God," 
there  is  nothing  there  but  bread  and  wine ;  mere  creatures 
of  God,  which  it  is  idolatry  to  adore.  By  his  senses,  even 
though  he  may  take  the  host  in  his  hand,  or  place  it  in  his 
mouth,  a  man  cannot  decide  this  question  ;  for  if  Christ  be 
there,  he  is  there  "veiled  "  under  the  accidents  of  bread, 
and  the  bodily  senses  bear  testimony  to  the  presence  of 
bread  alone  (§  35). 

The  intention  of  the  Priest,  here  spoken  of,  according  to 
the  illustration  quoted  from  the  Missale  Romanum,  is  his 
intention  in  the  popular  sense  of  that  word,  his  purpose, 
his  design.  Now  the  intention  of  a  man,  in  this  sense  of 
the  word,  is  something  locked  up  in  his  own  bosom,  and 
cannot  be  known  with  absolute  certainty  save  by  God, 
and  the  man's  own  self.  On  this  ground,  we  say  that  the 
Romanist — may  presume,  may  believe,  may  believe  for 
very  good  reasons,  that  in  worshipping  the  host  in  any 
particular  instance,  he  is  worshipping  "  Christ,  the  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God,"  but  he  can  never  know  that  such  is 
the  fact, — can  never  know  that  his  worship  is  not  idolatry. 

And  this  difficulty  acquires  peculiar  significance  from  the 
fact,  that  there  have  been  wicked,  deceitful  men  in  the 
ministry  in  all  ages.  Judas  was  one  of  the  twelve,  and 
yet  he  was  "a  devil"  from  the  beginning.  Jno.  vi.  70.  One 
of  the  cases  expressly  stated  in  the  Missale  Romanum,  as 
quoted  above,  is  that  of  a  Priest  who  "  did  not  intend  to 
effect  consecration,  but  to  practice  some  deception  :  " — of 
course,  such  a  case  as  this  would  not  be  stated  unless  it 
was  believed  that  it  did  sometimes  occur.     Should  another 


The  RoinanisCs  Adoration  of  the  Host  Idolatry.  101 

Jud;is  thrust  hirasolf  into  the  priesthood, — we  say,  another, 
for  Judas  was  a  Priest  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  according 
to  Romish  doctrine — he  would  be  just  the  man  "  to  prac- 
tice some  deception  "  in  this  matter,  for  his  whole  hfe  was 
a  He;  and  what  UkeUhood  is  there  that  the  lay-Romanist 
of  to-day  would  detect  his  true  character,  since  the  eleven 
apostles,  among  whom  was  Peter  himself,  did  not,  in  three 
years'  intimate  association  with  him. 

II.  The  Missale  Romanum,  in  the  chapter  already 
quoted  from,  and  in  Section  "  iv.  De  defectu  vini " — 
has  the  following  statement, — "  If  the  wine  has  become 
"  thoroughly  sour,  or  thoroughly  putrid,  or  has  been  ex- 
"  pressed  from  grapes  sour  or  unripe  {vel  de  uvis  acerbis 
"  seu  non  inaturis  expressurti),  or  is  mixed  with  such  a 
"  quantity  of  water  that  the  wine  is  corrupted,  the  sacra- 
''  ment  is  not  effected." 

In  illustration  of  the  meaning  of  this  rule,  let  the  reader 
consider  the  following  statement  of  Archbishop  Gibbons, 
when  giving  reasons  for  withholding  the  cup  fi'om  the  laity 
in  communion — "  In  my  missionary  journeys  through 
North  Carolina,  I  have  often  found  it  no  easy  task  to  pro- 
cure for  the  celebration  of  Mass  a  sufficiency  of  pure  wine, 
which  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  sacrifice.  This  em- 
barrassment would  be  increased  beyond  measure,  if  the  cup 
had  to  be  extended  to  the  laity,  and  still  more  so  in  cold 
regions  where  the  cultivation  of  the  grape  is  unknown  ; 
and  where  imported  wine  is  exclusively  used."  [Faith  of 
our  Fathers,  p.  348.) 

In  vine-growing  countries,  like  Italy,  it  may  be  possible 
for  an  honest  priest,  who  by  practice  has  become  a  good 
judge  of  wine,  to  procure  such  wine  as  is  required  under 
the  above-quoted  rule ;  and  to  feel  absolutely  certain  that 
he  has  procured  and  is  using  such: — but  in  this  country, 
where  imported  wine  must  be  depended  upon;  and  in  this 
day,  when  the  manufacture  and  adulteration  of  wine  has 
been  carried  to  such  perfection,  such  certainty  on  the  part 
of  the  priest  is  impossible.  If  he  will  go  to  any  chemist 
acquainted  with  the  subject,  or  to  any  "  rectifier  "  of  liquors, 
he  will  tell  him  that  it  is  a  very  easy  thing  so  to  "rectify" 
wine  made  from  sour  or  unripe  grapes,  with  certain  drugs 


192  TliG  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  /Stqjper. 

and  alcoliol,  that  not  one  man  out  of  a  thousand  can  detect 
the  fact.  The  Church  of  Rome  does  not  pretend  that  the 
Priest  is  assisted  in  any  supernatural  manner  in  this 
case: — the  communicant  himself  does  not  taste  the  wine; 
ordinarily,  does  not  even  see  it,  as  it  is  contained  in  a  silver 
chalice ;  and  so  cannot  receive  assistance  from  his  know- 
ledge of  wines.  If  then,  the  actual  presence  of  "Christ, 
the  only-begotten  Son  of  God"  in  the  Consecrated  wine  is 
dependent  upon  such  circumstances  as  these,  how  is  it 
possible  that  the  Romanist,  when  in  any  particular  instance 
he  adores  the  sacrament  as  presented  in  the  raised  chalice, 
can  know  that  transubstantiation  has  been  effected, — that 
lie  is  not  worshipping  mere  wine,  a  creature  of  God,  and 
so,  is  guilty  of  idolatry?  Certainly,  if  the  doctrine  of  the 
Missale  Romanum  is  true  doctrine,  Paul,  in  giving  the 
qualifications  of  a  bishop,  should  not  have  written — "  not 
given  to  wine  "  (1  Tim.  iii.  3),  but  the  best  judge  of  wine 
in  the  country. 

§  69.  Modern  and  Ancient  Idolatry. 

Let  the  reader  carefully  ponder  the  following  extracts 
from  the  Missale  Ptomanum,  the  manual  by  which  the  cel- 
ebration of  Mass  is  regulated  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
throughout  all  countries,  and  so,  of  the  highest  authority 
in  all  things  which  concern  the  mass.* 

"  Section  iii.  7.  If  the  consecrated  host  disappear, 
"  either  by  an  accident,  as  by  the  w^ind,  or  by  miracle,  or 
"by  having  been  eaten  by  any  animal,  and  cannot  be 
"found,  then  let  another  host  be  consecrated,"  etc. 

"  Section  x.,  Art.    11.  If  in  winter  the  blood  be  con- 

*  III.  7.  "  Si  hostia  consecrata  dispareat,  vel  causa  aliquo,  ut  vento, 
aut  miraculo,  vel  ab  aliquo  animali  accepta,  et  nequeat  reperiri;  tunct 
altera  consecratur,"  etc. 

X.  11.  "  Si  in  hiems  sanguis  congelatur  in  Calice,  involvatur  Calix 
pannis  califactis ;  si  id  non  proficeret,  ponatur  in  ferventi  aqua  prope 
Altare,  duramode  in  Calicem  non  intret,  donee  liquifiat." 

X.  14.  Si  Sacerdos  evomat  Eucharistum,  si  species  integra  apparent, 
reverentur  sumantur,  nisi  nausea  fiat :  tunc  enim  species  consecrata  caute 
separarantur,  et  in  aliquo  loco  sacro  reponantur,  donee  corrumpantur, 
et  postea  in  sacrarium  projiciantur.  Quod  si  species  non  appareant, 
comburatur  vomitus,  et  ciaeris  in  sacrarium  mittantur." 


Modern  and  Ancient  Idolatry.  193 

"goaled  in  the  chalice,  let  the  chalice  be  wrapt  in  warm 
"cloths;  if  this  does  not  succeed,  let  it  be  placed  in  hot 
"water  near  the  altar,  provided  it  does  not  enter  into  the 
"  chalice,  until  it  be  melted." 

"  Section  x.,  Art.  1-i.  If  the  priest  vomit  forth  the  Eu- 
"charist,  if  the  species  appear  entire,  let  them  be  rever- 
"  ently  taken  (i.  e.,  eaten  again),  unless  nausea  arise.  In 
"  that  case,  let  the  consecrated  species  be  carefully  sepa- 
"  rated,  and  let  them  be  replaced  in  some  sacred  place, 
"until  they  become  putrid,  and  afterwards  let  them  be 
"  thrown  into  the  sacrarum.  But  if  the  species  cannot 
"  be  distinguished,  let  the  vomit  be  burned,  and  the  ashes 
"be  cast  into  the  sacrarium."  {Missale  Romanum.  Ch. 
"  De  defectihus  in  celebratione  missarum  occur rentibus.) 

The  things  here  spoken  of,  are,  in  the  title  of  the  chap- 
ter, spoken  of  as  things  actually  occurring  in  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Mass ;  and  the  Popes,  by  whose  special  authority 
every  edition  of  the  Missale  Romanum  is  pubHshed,  ought 
to  know,  if  any  one  does,  the  truth  in  the  case.  According 
to  this  highest  authority  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  then,  the 
consecrated  host  is  sometimes  lost,  so  that  it  cannot  be 
found:  it  is  sometimes  blown  away  by  the  wind;  it  is 
sometimes  eaten  by  anvmcds  (rats  or  mice,  we  suppose): — 
and  sometimes  when  reverently  swallowed  by  a  priest,  and 
this  in  obedience  to  Christ's  special  command,  it  nauseates 
him,  and  he  is  compelled  to  vomit  it  up : — and  the  conse- 
crated wine  is  sometimes /ro2e?^,  and  has  to  be  thawed,  by 
wrapping  the  vessel  which  contains  it  in  warm  cloths,  or 
placing  it  in  hot  water.  And  this  host  and  consecrated 
wine  the  Council  of  Trent  declares  to  be  "  the  same  God  . 
"  .  .  of  whom  the  eternal  Father,  when  introducing  him 
"  into  the  world,  says :  And  let  all  the  Angels  of  God 
"worship  him;  whom  the  Magi  falling  down,  adored, 
*'  who,  in  fine,  as  the  Scripture  testifies,  was  adored  by  the 
"  Apostles  in  Galilee :  — and  requires  me,  under  pain  of 
anathema,  to  'adore  it,  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.'" 

Compare  such  worship  as  that  which  is  thus  demanded 

of  me,  with  the  ancient  idolatry,  which  the  Prophet  Isaiah 

assailed  in  the  use  of  solemn  irony ; — "  He  heweth  him 

down  cedars,  and  taketh  the  cypress  and  the  oak,  which 

9 


194  TJie  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

he  strengthenetli  for  himself  among  the  trees  of  the  forest : 
he  planteth  an  oak,  and  the  rain  doth  nourish  it.  Then 
shall  it  be  for  a  man  to  burn,  for  he  will  take  thereof,  and 
warm  himself ;  yea,  he  kindleth  it,  arid  baketh  bread ;  yea, 
he  maketh  a  god,  and  worshippeth  it ;  he  maketh  it  a 
graven  image,  and  falleth  down  thereto.  He  burneth  part 
thereof  in  the  fire ;  with  part  thereof  he  eateth  flesh ;  he 
roasteth  roast,  and  is  satisfied ;  yea,  he  warmeth  himself, 
and  saith,  Aha,  I  am  warm,  I  have  seen  the  fire :  And 
the  residue  thereof  he  maketh  a  god,  even  his  graven  im- 
age :  he  falleth  down  unto  it,  and  worshippeth  it,  and 
prayeth  unto  it  and  saith.  Deliver  me ;  for  thou  art  my 
god.  They  have  not  known  nor  understood,  for  he  hath 
shut  their  eyes,  that  they  cannot  see;  and  their  hearts 
that  they  cannot  understand.  And  none  considereth  in  his 
heart,  neither  is  there  knowledge  and  understanding  to  say, 
I  have  burned  part  of  it  in  the  fire ;  yea,  also,  I  have 
baked  bread  upon  the  coals  thereof ;  I  have  roasted  flesh 
and  eaten  it ;  and  shall  I  make  the  residue  thereof  an 
abomination  ?  shall  I  fall  down  to  the  stock  of  a  tree  ? 
He  feedeth  on  ashes :  a  deceived  heart  hath  turned  him 
aside,  that  he  cannot  deliver  his  soul,  nor  say.  Is  there  not 
a  lie  in  my  right  hand."  (Isai.  xliv.  14-20.)  Reader,  what 
think  you  of  modern  as  compared  with  ancient  idolatry  ? 
Do  I  mean  to  charge  the  great  body  of  intelligent 
Romanists  in  this  country  with  consciously  practicing 
idolatry  so  gross  as  this  ?  By  no  means, — I  do  not  believe 
that  one  out  of  a  hundred  of  them,  has  ever  heard  of,  or 
even  thought  of  such  facts  as  are  stated  in  the  above  ex- 
tracts from  the  Missale  Romanum.  What  I  do  mean  to 
say  is,  that  this  is  the  very  form  of  idolatry  taught  in  the 
Missale  : — and  further,  that  this  is  the  logical  consequence 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  as  defined  by  the 
Council  of  Trent. 

§  70.   The  'Real  Presence  not  a  doctrine  of  the  Primitive 
Church. 

Romish  writers  often  complain  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence  is  made  a  subject  of  ridicule  by  their  Pro- 


The  Real  Presence  and  the  Primitive  Church.    195 

testant  adversaries.  Cardinal  Wiseman  writes, — "  Dr.  A. 
Clarke,  whose  works  I  shall  now  have  often  to  mention,  as 
the  great  armory  of  Protestants  in  this  controversy, 
designates  those  who  hold  the  Catholic  belief  on  the  Ileal 
Presence,  as  '  the  most  stupid  of  mortals.'  On  another 
ooctision  he  says  of  us,  '  he  who  can  beheve  such  a  con- 
geries of  absurdities,  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  volunteer  in 
liiith,  for  it  is  evident  the  man  can  have  neither  faith  nor 
reason.'  ...  I  could  occupy  you  long  with  extracts  from 
Protestants,  full  of  the  most  ribald  scurrility  when  speak- 
ing of  this  blessed  institution.  But  considering  them,  as 
we  must  do,  at  least,  ignorantly  blasphemous,  I  will  not 
shock  your  ears,  nor  pollute  my  lips,  by  repeating  what 
can  in  no  manner  strengthen  their  cause  with  virtuous 
or  sensible  men."  [Lectures  on  the  Eucharist,  pp.  183,  4.) 
That  the  transubstantiated  wafer,  according  to  the 
Romish  teaching,  is  a  very  strange  thing,  all  must  admit. 
To  our  bodily  senses,  it  has  the  color  and  odor  and  taste 
of  bread.  But  we  are  taught  that  these  "accidents  in- 
here in  no  substance," — that  the  color  and  odor  and  taste 
of  which  our  senses  teU  us  are  the  color  and  odor  and  taste 
of — nothing.  And  this,  while  the  material  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  really  there,  but  without  "accidents,"  i.  e., 
without  color  or  odor  or  taste.  Thus  we  have  here,  one 
substance  masquerading  (the  reader  must  pardon  the  word, 
for  I  can  find  no  other  that  will  exactly  express  the  idea,) 
in  the  cast-off  accidents  of  another.  This  is  a  strange 
thing, — the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  well  says, 
we  cannot  "  find  any  example  of  it  in  natural  transmuta- 
tions, not  even  in  the  wide  range  of  creation."  But  this 
is  not  the  strangest  part  of  this  strange  doctrine.  The 
Council  of  Trent  declares  that  this  strange  thing  "is 
Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,"  presenting  himself 
among  us  "m^ecZ."  Their  language  on  this  point  is, — 
speaking  of  the  blessedness  of  the  Christian  after  his 
arrival  in  the  heavenly  country, — he  shall  "  eat,  without 
any  veil,  that  same  bread  of  angels  which  he  now  eats  under 
the  sacred  veils."  (Session  xiii.  ch.  viii.)  In  this  conse- 
crated wafer  then,  we  have  "  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God,"  so  closely  veiled — with  his  veil  wrapped  in  so 


19G  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

many  folds  around  him,  that  to  the  sharpest  bodily  senses 
there  seems  to  be  nothing  but  the  veil  there ;  and  the  still 
sharper  investigation  of  chemical  analysis  discovers  nothing 
else  : — and  he  holds  this  veil  so  tightly, — that  if  it  catches 
the  wind,  he  is  blown  away  with  his  veil  rather  than  let  it 
go, — or,  if  attacked  by  any  animal,  a  mouse,  for  example, — 
and  his  veil  is  so  like  bread  that  even  mice  are  deceived 
thereby — he  submits  to  be  eaten  by  the  mouse  rather  than 
let  it  go, — or,  if  in  the  course  of  his  solemn  worship,  he 
is  swallowed  by  his  priest,  and  the  veil  nauseates  the  poor 
priest — for  it  must  be  the  veil  that  does  it — and  so  this 
Christ  is  vomited  up,  he  comes  up  with  the  veil  closely 
wrapped  around  him  still.  These  particulars  are  not  of 
Protestant  invention ;  they  are  the  very  ones  specifically 
provided  against  in  the  Missale  Romanum,  the  book  which 
is  the  sole  authoritative  guide  in  Romish  worship  through- 
out the  world.  In  view  of  such  facts  as  these,  it  will  not 
appear  surprising,  that  writers  having  no  faith  in  this 
doctrine,  should  sometimes  have  made  it  the  subject  of 
ridicule.  It,  certainly,  lies  more  open  to  ridicule  than 
any  other  doctrine  taught  in  the  Church  of  Rome ;  and  it 
is  true,  as  Cardinal  Wiseman  says,  that  Protestant  writers 
have  often  ridiculed  it. 

In  contrast  with  this  is  the  conduct  of  the  assailants  of 
the  Church  in  primitive  times.  "  Every  person,  moder- 
ately versed  in  the  documents  of  antiquity,  is  well  aware, 
that  the  pagans  again  and  again  pleased  themselves  with 
ridiculing  the  well-known  worship  of  the  Saviour  as  God ; 
and  in  the  dialogue  Philopatris,  we  find  them  similarly 
scoffing  at  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  Such 
ridicule  proves  the  existence  of  those  doctrines  in  the 
primitive  Church ;  and  by  a  parity  of  reasoning,  if  they 
had  scoffed  at  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  they 
would  equally  have  established  the  existence  of  that  doc- 
trine. But,  so  far  as  I  know,  they  never  deride  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation."  (Faber's  Difficulties  of 
Romanism,  p.  112.) 

Admitting  the  fact  stated  above,  Romish  writers  have 
attempted  to  evade  the  inference  therefrom,  by  alleging, 
that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  regarded  as 


The  Real  Presence  and  the  Primitive  Church.     197 

one  of  "  the  mysteries  of  the  faith,"  and  not  made  known 
except  to  the  baptized.  Even  if  we  grant  the  existence 
of  such  mysteries, — though  the  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures give  no  intimation  of  them — and  all  that  Komish 
writers  affirm  respecting  doctrines  taught  the  initiated 
alone: — this  defense  will  not  apply  in  the  case  of  such 
writers  as  Julian,  familiarly  known  as  Julian  the  Apostate. 
He  lived,  and  wrote  during  the  fourth  century,  and  was 
not  only  a  baptized  member  of  the  Church,  but,  by  direc- 
tion of  his  brother,  Constantino  the  Great,  he  was  care- 
fully educated  for  holy  orders,  and  actually  ordained  a 
priest.  He  therefore  must  have  been  taught  even  "  the 
mysteries  of  the  faith,"  i.  e.,  doctrines  not  made  known  to 
the  world  at  large,  if  the  Church  held  any  such  doc- 
trines. 

"  In  his  work  against  Christianity,  which  has  been  sub- 
stantially preserved,  and  which  has  been  regularly  an- 
swered by  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Julian  ridicules  the 
adoration  of  Christ ;  the  birth  of  Christ  from  the  Virgin : 
the  conception  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  doctrine 
that  Christ  was  the  creator  of  the  universe ;  the  doctrine 
that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  from  God,  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father ;  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which 
is  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  godhead;  he 
amuses  himself  likewise  with  what  he  deemed  the  incura- 
ble absurdity  of  the  purification  of  sin  by  the  mere  ele- 
ment of  water  in  baptism ;  and  approximating  to  the  very 
subject  of  transubstantiation,  if  any  such  doctrine  had 
been  held  in  the  Church,  he  laughs  at  the  Galileans  for 
saying,  that  Christ  had  once  been  sacrificed  on  their  be- 
half, and  that  consequently,  they  themselves  oifer  no 
sacrifices.  Bat  never,  on  any  occasion,  or  by  any  acci- 
dent, though  eagerly  bent  upon  catching  at  everything 
in  Christianity  which  might  be  turned  to  derision,  does  he 
mention,  or  even  so  much  as  allude  to,  the  Latin  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation.  .  .  .  Let  any  reasonable  being  con- 
sider the  complete  knowledge  which  the  baptized  Apostate 
possessed  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  his  utter  hatred 
of  the  gospel,  his  perpetual  recurrence  to  the  detested 
Galileans,  and  their  more  detested  theology,  his  humor  of 


198  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

turning  into  ridicule  whatever  in  Christianity  he  thought 
capable  of  being  made  ridiculous ;  let  any  reasonable 
being  consider  these  several  matters ;  and  then  let  him 
judge,  whether,  if  transubstantiation  had  been  a  doctrine 
of  the  early  Catholic  Church,  it  could  possibly  have  been 
passed  over  in  total  silence  by  such  a  man  as  Julian." 
{Fab&rs  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  pp.  114,  115.) 


Fricsthood  binder  the  Xcw  Testament.  199 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


PRIESTHOOD    UNDER   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

§71.  Priests  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  §72.  Did  Christ  institute  a  priesthood  in 
his  Church?  g  73.  Presbuteros  translated  Priest.  274.  The  priesthood  re- 
cognized in  the  New  Testament.  g75.  An  "external  priesthood"  not  recog- 
nized in  the  New  Testament. 

§  71.   Tlie  Priests  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

"  Sacrifice  and  priesthood  are,  by  tHe  ordinance  of  God, 
"  in  such  wise  conjoined,  as  that  both  have  existed  in  every 
"law.  Whereas,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
"  Catholic  Church  has  received,  from  the  institution  of 
"  Christ,  the  holy  visible  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist ;  it 
"  must  needs  also  be  confessed,  that  there  is,  in  that  church, 
"  a  new,  visible,  and  external  priesthood,  into  which  the 
"old  has  been ^rawsfetecZ  (Heb,  vii.  12.)  And  the  sacred 
"  Scriptures  show,  and  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church 
"  has  always  taught,  that  this  priesthood  was  instituted  by 
"  the  same  Lord  our  Saviour,  and  that  to  the  Apostles, 
"  and  their  successors  in  the  priesthood,  was  the  power 
"  delivered  of  consecrating,  offering,  and  administering  his 
"  body  and  blood,  as  also  of  forgiving  and  retaining  sins." 
{Council  of  Trent,  xxiii. /S'ession,  ch.  i.) 

"  Canon  I.  If  any  one  saith,  that  there  is  not  in  the 
"  New  Testament  a  visible  and  external  priesthood ;  or 
"  that  there  is  not  any  power  of  consecrating  and  offering 
"  the  true  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  of  forgiving 
"  and  retaining  sins,  but  only  an  office  of  bare  ministry  of 
"  preaching  the  gospel ;  or  that  those  who  do  not  preach 
"  are  not  priests  at  all;  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of 
Trent,  xxiii.  Session.) 

"  The  office  of  the  Priest  then,  as  the  rites  used  at  his 


200  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  consecration  declare,  is  to  offer  sacrifice  to  God,  and  to 
"  administer  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  .  .  .  He  next 
"anoints  his  hands  with  sacred  oil,  reaches  him  a  chalice 
"  containing  wine  and  a  patina  with  bread,  saying, — lie- 
*'  ceive  power  to  offer  sacrifice  to  God,  and  to  celebrate  mass, 
"  as  well  for  the  living  as  for  the  dead.  By  these  words 
"  and  ceremonies  he  is  constituted  an  interpreter  ^nd  me- 
"  diator  between  God  and  man,  the  principal  function  of 
"the  Priesthood."  (Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent, p. 
221.) 

"  Everywhere,  from  the  very  beginning,  we  find  two 
mysterious  institutions,  inseparable  from  each  other;  sac- 
rifice and  priesthood.  One  name  (in  Latin)  is  derived 
from  the  other :  Sacerdos  a  Sacrificando."  [Nampons 
"  Catholic  Doctrine,"  p.  384.) 

"  The  principal  ofiice  of  the  priest,  has  always  been  to 
offer  sacrifice.  Priest  and  sacrifice  are  as  closely  identi- 
fied as  judge  and  court." {Gibbons'  "  Faith  of  our  Fathers," 
p.  357.) 

From  the  above-quoted  extracts  it  will  be  seen,  that  the 
principal  function  of  the  Priesthood,  in  the  Pomish  sense 
of  that  term,  is  to  offer  sacrifice,  and  so,  to  act  as  "  a  me- 
diator between  God  and  man." 

The  nature  of  this  sacrifice  which  the  Pomish  Priest 
offers  is  set  forth  in  the  following — "  Canon  III.  If  any  one 
"saith,  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  only  a  sacrifice  of 
"  praise  and  thanksgiving ;  or,  that  it  is  a  bare  commem- 
"  oration  of  the  sacrifice  consummated  on  the  cross,  but 
"  not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice ;  or,  that  it  profits  him  only 
"  who  receives ;  and  that  it  ought  not  to  be  offered  for  the 
"  living  and  the  dead  for  sins,  pains,  satisfactions,  and  other 
"  necessities  :  let  him  be  anathema."  (Council  of  Trent, 
xxii.  Session.)  For  a  full  exposition  of  the  nature  of  this 
sacrifice,  see  chap.  ix.  x. 

In  those  Protestant  churches  in  which  a  priesthood  ex- 
ists, it  is  a  priesthood  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that 
of  Pome.  On  this  subject  Seymour  writes — "  The  Holy 
Scriptures  frequently  speak  of  the  Priests  and  Elders  of 
the  Jews.  The  original  words  would  have  been  more 
suitably  translated — '  The  Sacrificers  and  Presbyters   of 


Did  Christ  Listitute  a  Priesthood  vi  his  Church  f   201 

the  Jews.'  The  former,  that  is,  the  Priests  or  Sacrificers 
ceased  with  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Their  Priesthood 
and  Sacrifices  were  typical,  and  passed  away  when  Jesus 
Christ,  the  true  Priest  and  Sacrificer,  was  come;  and  ex- 
ercised the  ofEce,  and  made  the  atonement.  The  latter, 
that  is,  the  Elders  or  Presbyters,  were  continued,  or,  more 
correctly  speaking,  their  name  was  continued  in  the 
Christian  dispensation,  and  applied  to  the  Christian 
ministry." 

"  It  is  this  word  Presbyter,  contracted  into  Prester,  and 
then  into  Priest,  that  is  applied  so  often  by  us  to  our 
ministers.  It  is  not  in  the  sense  of  hiereus,  a  Sacrificer, 
the  word  applied  to  the  Jewish  Priest;  but  in  the  sense  of 
preshuteros,  a  Presbyter,  that  we  so  apply  it.  The  Ro- 
manists use  it  in  the  former  sense,  claiming  to  be  sacri- 
ficers. The  Protestants  use  it  in  the  latter,  claiming  to  be 
Presbyters."  {Seymours  ''Evenings  with  the  Pomanists," 
pp.  284-5.) 

§  72.  Pid   Christ  institute  a  Priesthood  in  his   Church  ? 

"  Canon  II.  If  any  one  saith,  that  by  these  words,  Do 
"this  for  the  commemoration  of  me  (Luke  xxii.  19,)  Christ 
"  did  not  institute  the  Apostles  priests  ;  or,  did  not  ordain 
"  that  they  and  other  priests  should  offer  his  own  body 
"and  blood:  let  him  be  anathema."  [Council  of  Trent, 
xxii.  Session.) 

"The  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  with  regard  to 
"  this  sacrifice,  she  received  from  our  Lord,  when  at  his 
"  last  supper,  committing  to  his  Apostles  the  sacred  mys- 
"  teries,  he  said:  'This  do,  for  a  commemoration  of  me' 
"  (Luke  xxii.  19.)  He  then,  as  the  Holy  Synod  has  de- 
"  fined,  ordained  them  priests,  and  commanded  them  and 
"  their  successors  in  the  ministry,  to  immolate  and  offer  in 
"sacrifice  his  precious  body  and  blood."  {Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  p.  174.) 

"  When  Jesus,  as  you  remember,  instituted  the  Eucharist 

at  his  last  Supper,  he  commanded  his  disciples  and  their 

successors  to  renew,  till  the  end  of  time,  in  remembrance 

of  him,  the  ceremony  which  he  performs.  What  I  have 

9* 


202  The  Doctrine  of  the  LorcTs  Supper. 

done,  do  ye  also  '  for  a  commemoration  of  me.'  (Luke  xxii. 
19)."  {Gibbons'  "Faith  of  our  Fathers," p.  33G.) 

Is  it  true,  as  here  alSrmed  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  that 
when  our  Lord  said — "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  mej 
(Do  this  for  a  commemoration  of  me — Douay  Bible ^  his 
words  are  to  be  understood — (1)  As  addressed  to  the 
Twelve  in  their  character  of  Apostles,  and  so,  as  consti- 
tuting them  priests,  and  empowering  them  to  offer  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass, — and  (2)  That  by  "  do  this,"  ho 
means — "  What  I  have  done  do  ye  also  ?  " 

To  this  we  reply — 

1.  Matthew  and  Mark,  in  their  account  of  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  have  no  record  of  any  such 
words  as  uttered  by  our  Lord.  (See  Matt.  xxvi.  26-30, 
Mark  xiv.  22-26.)  This  is  passing  strange  if  these 
words  were  intended  to  teach  so  important  a  doctrine  as 
that  of  a  New  Testament  priesthood,  to  "  ordain  these 
Apostles  as  priests,"  and  to  confer  on  them  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  office  the  power  to  effect  the  real  presence,  and 
offer  in  sacrifice  the  "  complete  Christ ;  "  and  this  for  all 
coming  time.  This  clause  of  a  sentence,  for  it  is  but  a 
clause,  as  given  by  Luke,  instead  of  being  of  little  im- 
portance, and  therefore  capable  of  omission  without  affect- 
ing the  integrity  of  the  narrative,  on  this  supposition,  be- 
comes the  most  weighty  portion  of  the  whole  record : — 
and  as  Matthew  and  Mark  wrote  and  gave  to  the  Church 
their  gospels  separately  and  independently,  v/e  see  not  how 
they  could  have  been  guilty  of  the  omission  without  in- 
curring great  blame.  And  this  omission,  on  the  part  of 
these  evangelists,  appears  all  the  more  strange  and  culpa- 
ble, when  we  call  to  mind  how  little  other  Scriptural 
authority  the  Romanist  is  able  to  fiiid  for  his  faith  on  these 
points. 

2.  Paul,  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  gives  a 
fuller  record  of  this  portion  of  the  transaction,  than  that 
given  by  Luke  : — "  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks, 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  unto  them,  saying,  This  is  my 
body  which  is  given  for  you :  This  do  in  remembrance  of 
one.  Likewise  also  the  cup  after  supper,  saying.  This  cup 
is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for  you." 


Did  Christ  Listitutc  a  Priesthood  iti  his  Church  ?  203 

(Luko  xxii.  19,  20.)  Paul's  account  is — "  The  Lor  J  Jesus, 
the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread ; 
and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said.  Take, 
eat :  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you :  This  do 
in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he 
took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the 
new  testament  in  my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink 
it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come."  (1  Cor.  xi.  23-26.) 

It  is  a  generally-admitted  rule  of  interpretation,  and  a 
sound  one,  that  where  we  have  two  records  of  the  same 
event,  one  of  which  is  more  full  than  the  other,  that  the 
briefer  one  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  one 
which  is  more  complete.  Applying  this  rule  in  the  case 
before  us,  we  remark — 

(1)  Paul  treats  these  words  of  our  Lord — "  This  do  in 
remembrance  of  me,"  as  addressed  to  the  twelve — not  as 
Apostles,  and  so,  representatives  of  the  clergy — but  as 
disciples,  and  so,  representatives  of  the  whole  Church.  He 
writes  this  whole  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper 
for  the  purpose  of  correcting  disorders  which  had  arisen 
in  the  Church  at  Corinth — not  among  the  clergy,  in 
administering  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  among  the  private 
members  of  the  Church,  in  partaking  of  the  ordinance : 
disorders  expressed  in  his  words — "  For  in  eating,  every 
one  taketh  before  other  his  own  supper ;  and  one  is  hun- 
gry, and  another  is  drunken."  This  is  placed  beyond  all 
question,  by  the  immediate  context  in  which  these  words, 
as  spoken  the  second  time,  in  connection  with  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  cup,  are  given.  "  This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink 
it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till 
he  come ;  Wherefore,  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  and 
[or)  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord."  (Vers.  25-27.)  This 
admonition,  Eoraanists  agree  with  Protestants  in  under- 
standing as  addressed  to  the  Church  at  large.  If  these 
words  were  addressed  by  our  Lord  to  the  twelve,  not  as 
Apostles,  but  as  disciples,  and  so,  intended  for  the  Church 


204  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

at  large,  they  furnish  no  possible  foundation  for  the  doc- 
trine of  a  new  testament  priesthood  and  sacrifice,  such  as 
the  Council  of  Trent  would  build  upon  them. 

(2)  As  Paul  records  these  words  of  our  Lord,  they  refer 
grammatically  and  logically  to  "  take,  eat ;  "  and  so,  to  the 
partaking  of  the  ordinance,  and  not  to  its  administration. 
And,  as  if  to  put  this  matter  beyond  all  doubt,  Paul 
records  the  fact,  of  which  Luke  takes  no  notice,  that  our 
Lord  repeats  these  words  in  connection  with  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  cup — ''  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  re- 
membrance of  me;"  (for  the  commemoration  of  me — 
Douay  Bible)  where  the  thing  to  be  done  is  specifically 
declared  to  be  drinking  the  cup,  not  consecrating  it. 

§  73.  Preshuteros  translated  Priest. 

"  For  the  sacred  Scriptures  make  open  mention  not  only 
"  of  priests,  but  also  of  deacons ;  and  teach,  in  words  the 
"  most  weighty,  what  things  are  especially  to  be  attended 
"  to  in  the  ordination  thereof."  {Council  of  Trent,  xxiii. 
Session,  Ch.  ii.) 

St.  Paul  "  writes  to  Timothy  :  "  Neglect  not  the  grace 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with 
the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  priesthood.''  (1  Tim. 
iv.  14.)  It  was  by  this  method,  and  confessing  the  same 
grace,  that  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas  "  ordained  priests 
in  every  church,"  (Acts  xiv.  23,)  according  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Luke.  The  same  two  apostles  go  to  Jerusalem 
to  have  the  question  of  circumcision  decided  by  "  the 
Apostles  and  priests."  (Acts  xv.  2.)  St.  Paul  charges 
Titus  to  "  ordain  jjriesfe  "  in  the  different  cities  of  Crete, 
meaning  by  priests,  bishops,  as  the  Apostle  himself  ex- 
plains, a  few  verses  further  on  (Titus  i.  5-7.)  In  the  dis- 
course which  he  addressed  to  the  priests  of  the  churches 
of  Asia,  assembled  at  Miletus,  he  says  to  them  among 
other  things  :  "  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  the  whole 
flock,  wherein  the  Holy  Ghost  has  placed  you  bishop,  to 
rule  the  Church  of  God."  (Acts  xx.  17-28.)  {Nampons 
"  Catholic  Doctrine,"  p.  546.) 

In  all  the  passages,  quoted  above  by  Nampon,  the  words 


Frcshutcros  translated  Priest.  205 

translated  j9;-icsi/iOOC?  oxi^  priest,  are  in  tlie  Ovaok  prcshu- 
terios,  a.nd  presbiUeros  ;  {ind  in  the  Douay  Bible,  the  trans- 
lations are  as  given  by  Nampon. 

Other  instances  of  the  translation  of  the  Greek  presbu- 
teros  by  the  word  priest,  in  the  Douay.  Bible,  we  have  in 
1  Tim.  V.  17.  "  Let  the  priests  who  rule  well  be  esteemed 
worthy  of  double  honor;  especially  they  who  labor  in 
word  and  doctrine."  And — James  v.  14.  "  Is  any  sick 
among  you  ?  let  him  bring  in  the  priests  of  the  Church, 
and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil,  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  in  every  instance  in  which 
the  word  presbuteros,  is  clearly  used  as  an  official  designa- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  Church,  the  Douay  Bible 
translates  it  by  the  word  priest. 

In  all  other  instances  of  its  use  in  the  New  Testament, 
even  where  the  word  is  used  as  an  official  designation  of 
the  Jewish  Church,  the  Douay  Bible  translates  it  with  the 
word  Ancients.  See  Matt.  xvi.  21,  xxi,  23,  xxvii.  1,  20, 
41.  Mark  viii.  31.  xiv.  43.  xv.  1.  Luke  ix.  22.  xxii. 
52.  Acts  iv.  8,  12.  xxiv.  1.  xxv.  15.  So,  also,  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  where  the  Authorized  version  has  the 
word  Elders,  the  Douay  Bible  has  "  ancients."  See  Eev. 
iv.  4,  10.  V.  5,  6,  8,  14.  xi.  16.  xiv.  3.  There  is  one  ex- 
ception, viz. :  Acts  ii.  17,  where  presbuteroi  is  transla- 
ted old  men. 

It  may  be  said — that  the  Douay  Bible  does  not  profess 
to  be  translated  from  the  Greek,  but,  "  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  dihgently  compared  with  the  Hebrew,  Greek  and 
other  editions,  in  divers  languages."  If  we  examine  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  we  will  find  that  in  the  seven  passages  in 
which  presbuteros  is  used  as  an  official  designation  of  the 
New  Testament  Church,  the  Vulgate  has  rendered  it  by 
the  \v ord  presbyter — which  is  plainly  the  original  Greek 
word  Latinized,  in  every  case  but  one.  Acts  xx.  17,  where 
it  renders  it  majores  natu  ;  which  last,  certainly  does  not 
mean  priest.  The  single  question  before  us,  then,  is  this  : 
— Is  there  any  authority  for,  or  justification  of  the  course 
of  the  Douay  translation  in  rendering  presbuteros,  priest  ? 

1.  Presbuteros  is  the  comparative  form  of  presbus,  old ; 


206  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

and  literally  means,  older ;  or  when  used  substantively,  a 
man  older  than  others.  Because,  in  ancient  times,  while 
a  modified  patriarchal  government  prevailed,  old  men  would 
naturally  be  selected  to  hold  office,  out  of  regard  to  their 
presumed  superiority  in  knowledge  and  experience,  the 
word  acquired  a  secondary  meaning,  and  was  used  as  an 
official  designation  without  reference  to  age.  In  this,  it 
is  like  the- Latin  senatus,  and  the  English  alderman. 

2.  Among  the  Jews,  in  our  Lord's  day,  it  was  evidently 
used  to  designate  an  officer,  distinct  from  the  priest  and 
the  scribe ;  for  all  three  are  not  unfrequently  mentioned 
in  the  same  sentence,  as  in  Matt.  xvi.  21,  xxi.  23,  etc. 
And  this  established  usage  of  the  word  would  naturally 
pass  over  from  the  Jewish  to  the  Christian  Church. 

3.  The  Greek  language  has  the  word  hiereus,  and  the 
Latin  the  word  sacerdos,  meaning  priest  in  the  Romish 
sense  of  the  word,  and  these  words  are  uniformly  used  in 
this  sense  in  the  Greek  New  Testament  and  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  and  are  translated  priest  in  the  Douay  Bible. 
These  words  are  never  applied  in  the  New  Testament,  to 
any  human  officer  in  the  Christian  Church. 

4.  This  distinction  in  meaning  between  the  words  pre&6w- 
teros  and  hiereus,  had  become  established  by  long  usage  in 
the  days  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles, — is  carefully  observed 
in  the  Septuagint  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  well 
as  in  the  Greek  New  Testament, — and  is  uniformly  ac- 
knowledged by  the  Douay  translators  themselves  in  their 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  even  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  so  far  as  the  Jewish  Church  is  concerned.  In 
view  of  these  facts,  we  say,  that  the  Douay  translation  of 
the  Greek  word  presbuteros  by  the  English  word  ^nesi,  is 
not  only  without  any  authority,  or  even  justification,  but 
seems  to  have  been  made  with  the  deliberate  purpose  of 
falsifying  the  witness  of  the  word  of  God,  on  a  point  in 
controversy  between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  Protestants. 
The  words  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  quoted  at  the  com- 
mencement of  this  section,  seem,  at  first  sight,  to  justify 
this  mistranslation  of  the  Douay  Bible,  yet  a  more  careful 
examination  will  put  a  different  construction  upon  them. 
Of  course  they  could  not  have  had  the  Douay  Bible  before 


The  Priesthood  recognized  in  the  j\xw  Testament.    207 

tliera,  as  their  decree  was  passed  in  15G3,  and  the  transla- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  at  llhiems,  the  one  adopted 
for  the  Douay  Bible  Wfis  not  made  until  1582.  They 
evidently  refer  to  mention  made,  in  the  Epistles  to  Timo- 
thy and  Titus,  and  speak  of  this  as  a  "  mention  of  priests," 
because  they  regarded  the  bishops  there  spoken  of  as  but 
an  order  of  the  priesthood. 

It  is  perhaps  no  more  than  fair  that  I  should  add,  that 
Cardinal  Wiseman,  Archbishop  Gibbons  and  Dr.  Milner 
never  quote  any  of  these  mis-translated  passages  of  the 
Douay  Bible,  in  their  arguments  for  a  Priesthood  in  the 
Christian  Church,  or  for  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

§  74.   The  Priesthood  recognized  in  the  New  Testament. 

"  If  any  one  'affirm,  that  all  Christians  indiscriminately 
"  are  priests  of  the  New  Testament,  or  that  they  are  all 
"mutually  endowed  with  an  equal  spiritual  power,  he 
"  clearly  does  nothing  but  confound  the  ecclesiastical 
"hierarchy,  which  is  as  an  army  set  in  array."  [Council  of 
Trent,  xxiii.  Session,  ch.  iv.) 

"  Canon  I.  If  any  one  saith,  that  there  is  not  in  the 
"  New  Testament  a  visible  and  external  priesthood ;  .  .  . 
"  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent,  xxiii.  Session) 

"  But  as  the  priesthood  is  described  in  the  Scriptures  as 
"  two-fold,  internal  and  external,  a  line  of  distinction  must 
"  be  drawn  between  them,  that  the  Pastor  may  have  it  in 
"  his  power  to  explain  to  the  faithful  the  priesthood  which  is 
"here  meant." 

"  The  internal  priesthood  extends  to  all  the  faithful,  who 
"have  been  baptized,  particularly  to  the  just,  who  are 
"  anointed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  by  the  divine  grace 
"are  made  living  members  of  the  High-priest  Christ  Jesus. 
"  Through  faith  inflamed  by  charity,  they  offer  spiritual 
"  sacrifices  to  God  on  the  altar  of  their  hearts ;  and  in  the 
"  number  of  these  sacrifices  are  to  be  reckoned  good  and 
"  virtuous  actions,  referred  to  the  glory  of  God.  Hence 
"  we  read  in  the  Apocalypse  :  '  Christ  hath  washed  us  from 
"  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  a  kingdom 
"  and  priests  to  God  and  his  Father.'  (Apoc.  i.  5,  6.)  The 
"  doctrine  of  St.  Peter  to  the  same  effect  we  find  recorded 


208  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

"  in  those  words  :  '  Be  ye  also,  as  living  stones,  built  up,  a 
"  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
"  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ.'  (1  Pet.  ii. 
"  5.)  The  Apostle  also  exhorts  us  '  to  present  our  bodies 
"  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  pleasing  to  God,  our  reasonable 
"service;'  (Rom.  xii.  1,)  and  David  had  said  long  before: 
"  '  A  sacrifice  to  God  is  an  afiiicted  spirit ;  a  contrite  and 
"  humble  heart,  0  God  !  thou  wilt  not  despise.'  (Ps.  1. 19.) 
"  That  all  these  authorities  regard  the  internal  Priesthood, 
"  it  requires  little  discernment  to  discover." 

"  The  external  priesthood  does  not  extend  indiscrimi- 
"  nately  to  the  great  body  of  the  faithful ;  it  is  appropria- 
"  ted  to  a  certain  class  of  persons,  who  being  invested  with 
"  this  august  character,  and  consecrated  to  God  by  the  law- 
"  ful  imposition  of  hands,  and  the  solemn  ceremonies  of 
"  the  Church,  are  devoted  to  some  particular  office  in  the 
"  sacred  ministry."  (Cat.  of  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  220-1.) 

From  the  above  extracts  from  the  Decrees,  and  Cate- 
chism of  the  Council  of  Trent,  it  will  be  seen  that  Romanists 
and  Protestants  are  agreed  as  to  the  existence,  by  divine 
appointment,  in  the  Christian  Church,  of  what  is  here 
styled  the  "  internal  priesthood,"  a  priesthood  which  be- 
longs alike  to  all  the  true  people  of  God  in  the  world. 
Peter's  words,  addressed  as  they  are  "to  the  strangers 
scattered  throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia, 
and  Bithynia "  (1  Pet.  i.  1,)  and  John's  "  to  the  seven 
churches  " — i.  e.,  the  Christian  men  and  women  associated 
together  for  God's  service,  and  not  the  buildings, — "  which 
are  in  Asia,"  (Rev.  i.  4,)  place  this  matter  beyond  all 
question.  But  let  the  reader  notice  that  when  Romanists 
speak  of  a  priesthood  in  the  Christian  Church  it  is  not  this 
"  internal  priesthood  "  that  is  meant ;  but  a  priesthood  of 
an  entirely  different  character,  styled  by  the  Council  of 
Trent,  the  "  external  priesthood." 

§  75.    An  "  External  Priesthood  "  not  recognized  in  the 
New   Testament. 

In  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  Paul  writes — 
"  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church,  first_  apostles, 


An" External  Priesthood'' not  in  the  Neio  Testament.  209 

seeoiulai'ily  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  after  that  miracles, 
then  gifts  of  healing,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of 
tongues.  Are  all  apostles?  are  all  prophets?  are  all 
teachers  ?  are  all  workers  of  miracles  ?  have  all  the  gifts 
of  healing  ?  do  all  speak  with  tongues  ?  do  all  interpret  ? 
But  covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts."  (1  Cor.  xii.  28-31.) 
And  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  he  writes, — "  And  he 
(i.  e.  Christ,  v.  7,)  gave  some,  apostles;  and  some,  pro- 
phets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachers ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  Till 
wo  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  fjxith,  and  of  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the 
measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ."  (Eph.  iv. 
11-13.)  And  in  his  "Epistle  to  the  Romans — ''Having 
then  gifts,  differing  according  to  the  grace  that  is  given 
to  us,  whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the 
proportion  of  faith  ;  or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  minis- 
tering; or  he  that  teacheth,  on  teaching;  or  he  that  ex- 
horteth,  on  exhortation  ;  he  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with 
simplicity ;  he  that  ruleth,  with  diligence  ;  he  that  sheweth 
mercy,  with  cheerfulness."  (Rom.  xii.  6-8.) 

In  these  passages — and  they  are  the  only  ones  of  this 
character — we  have  what  purports  to  be  a  catalogue,  and 
we  would  naturally  expect  it  to  be  a  full  catalogue,  of  the 
offices,  extraordinary  and  ordinary,  which  existed  in  the 
Christian  Church  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  The  Douay 
Bible,  in  rendering  these  passages,  does  not  differ  in  any 
important  particular  from  the  Authorized  Version  from 
which  I  have  quoted; — and  on  Eph.  iv.  11,  it  has  this 
note — "  Gave  to  be  Apostles — Till  we  all  meet,  &c.  Here 
it  is  plainly  expressed,  that  Christ  has  left  in  his  church  a 
perpetual  succession  of  orthodox  pastors  and  teachers,  to 
preserve  the  faithful  in  unity  and  truth." 

Let  the  reader  now  turn  to  the  pastoral  Epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus,  where  Paul  gives  special  instructions 
respecting  the  organization  of  Churches,  and  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  officers  of  the  same. 

"  This  is  a  true  saying,  if  a  man  desire  the  office  of  a 
bishop  he  desireth  a  good  work.     A  bishop  then  must  be 


210  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 

blameless,  .  .  .  Likewise  must  the  deacons  be  grave  .  .  . 
These  things  write  I  unto  thee,  hoping  to  come  unto  thee 
shortly :  but  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou  mayest  know  how 
thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God."  1 
Tim.  iii.  14,  15,  Behave,  conduct  thyself,  "as  an  evangelist 
intrusted  by  him,  and  by  the  Lord  Jesus  himself,  to  regu- 
late affairs  in  the  house  of  God."  {Scott,  in  loc.) 

"■  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst 
set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders 
(presbuterous)  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee.  If 
any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful 
children,  not  accused  of  riot  or  unruly.  For  a  bishop  must 
be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God,"  &c.  (Titus  i.  5-7.)  In 
verse  5,  presbuterous  is  translated  Priest,  in  the  Douay 
Bible.  On  this  point  see  §  73.  The  bishop  (cpiskopon) 
mentioned  in  vs.  6,  is,  as  Alford  remarks — ''  plainly  iden- 
tified with  the  presbyter  spoken  of  before."  On  Acts  xx. 
28,  Alford  has  the  note, — "  The  English  Version  has  hardly 
dealt  fairly  in  this  case  with  the  sacred  text,  in  rendering 
episkopos  '  overseers ; '  whereas  it  ought  here,  as  in  all 
other  places  to  have  been  bishops,  that  the  fact  of  the  elders 
and  bishops  having  been  originally  and  apostolically  synon- 
ymous might  be  apparent  to  the  ordinary  English  read- 
er, which  now  it  is  not." 

Here  then,  in  these  several  catalogues  of  the  officers  ex- 
traordinary and  ordinary,  of  the  Church;  and  in  these 
particular  instructions  to  Timothy  and  Titus  respecting 
the  perfecting  of  the  organization  of  churches  by  the  ordi- 
nation of  the  needed  officers,  Priests  are  not  once  men- 
tioned. In  the  Old  Testament  Church  the  office  of  Priest  had 
existed  from  the  beginning,  so  that  the  idea  of  a  priest- 
hood in  the  church  must  have  been  familiar  to  the  Apos- 
tles. Can  this  fact  be  reasonably  accounted  for  except 
upon  the  supposition  that  no  such  office  existed  in  the 
Church  in  the  Apostles'  day  ? 


The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  211 


CHAPTEE    IX. 


THE   SACRIFICE   OF   THE   MASS. 

g76.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Jlass.  ?77.  Ps.  ex.  4,  Hob.  vii.  17.  §78.  Mai.  i.  11.  §79 
Heb.  vii.  12.  §80.  Heb.  xiii.  10.  §81.  Acts  xiii.  2.  §82.  Christian  sacrifices 
recognized  in  the  New  Testament.  §83.  Christ's  sacrifice  on  Calvary  the  one 
perfect  propitiatory  sacrifice. 

§  76.   The  SacriiiGe  of  the  Mass. 

"Canon  I.  If  any  one  saitH,  that  in  the  Mass  a  true 
"  and  proper  sacrifice  is  not  ofiered  to  God ;  or,  that 
"to  be  ofiered  is  nothing  else  but  that  Christ  is  given  us 
/'  to  eat ;  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  III.  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
"  Mass  is  only  a  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving;  or  that 
"  it  is  a  bare  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  consummated 
"  on  the  cross,  but  not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  ;  or,  that  it 
"  profits  him  only  who  receives ;  and  that  it  ought  not  to 
"  be  ofiered  for  the  living  and  the  dead  for  sins,  pains, 
"  satisfactions,  and  other  necessities ;  let  him  be  anath- 
"  ema."  {Council  of  Trent,  xxii.  Session.) 

"  The  Mass  is  the  unbloody  sacrifice  of  the  body  and 
"  blood  of  Christ,  under  the  appearance  of  bread  and 
"  wine,  representing  and  continuing  the  bloody  sacrifice  of 
"  the  cross."  {Bishop  Vernot's  Catechism,  p.  16.) 

That  we  may  see  the  foundation  upon  which  this  doc- 
trine of  the  Mass  rests,  let  us  turn  now  to  an  examination 
of  the  Scripture  proof  of  it  to  which  E,omanists  appeal. 

§  77.  Ps.  ex.  4,  and  Heh.  vii.  17. 
"  The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will  not  repent,  Thou  art 
a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedeck."  (Ps. 
ex.  4.) 


212  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  For  he  testifieth,  Tliou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the 
order  of  Melcliizedeck."  (Heb.  vii.  17.) 

"  Declai'ing  himself  constituted  '  a  priest  forever,  accord- 
"ing  to  the  order  of  Melchizedeck,'  (Ps,  ex.  4,)  he 
"  offered  up  to  God  the  Father  his  own  body  and  blood 
"  under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine ;  and,  under  the 
"  symbols  of  those  same  things,  he  delivered  (his  own  body 
"  and  blood)  to  be  received  by  his  Apostles,  whom  he  then 
"  constituted  priests  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  by  those 
"  words,  '  Do  this  in  commemoration  of  me,'  (Luke  xxii. 
"  19,)  he  commanded  them  and  their  successors  in  the 
"priesthood  to  offer  (them);  even  as  the  Catholic  Church 
"  has  always  understood  and  taught."  {Council  of  Trent, 
xxii.  Session,  ch.  i.) 

"  In  none  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  old  law,  however,  do 
"  we  discover  a  more  lively  image  of  the  Eucharistic  sacri- 
"  fice  than  in  that  of  Melchizedek.  Our  Lord  himself,  at 
"  the  last  supper,  offered  to  his  Eternal  Father  his  precious 
"  body  and  blood  under  the  appearance  of  bread  and  wine, 
at  the  "  same  time  declaring  himself  *  a  priest  forever, 
according  "to  the  order  of  ^ielchizedek." '  {Catechis')n  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  175.) 

"  In  what  did  this  '  order  of  Mechizedek  '  consist  ?  In 
what,  I  ask,  did  his  sacrifice  differ  from  those  which 
Abraham  himself  and  the  other  patriarchs,  as  well  as 
Aaron  and  his  sons  offered  ?  Let  us  consult  the  sacred 
text,  as  to  what  it  says  concerning,  this  royal  priest,  when 
lie  came  to  meet  Abraham,  on  his  return  from  victory : 
Melchizedek,  the  King  of  Salem,  bringing  forth  bread  and 
wine,  for  he  was  the  priest  of  the  Most  High  God ;  blessed 
him.  (Gen.  xiv.  18.)  It  was  then  in  offering  up  a  sacrifice 
of  bread  and  wine,  instead  of  slaughtered  animals,  that 
Melchizedek's  sacrifice  differed  from  the  generality  of  those 
in  the  old  law,  and  that  he.  prefigured  the  sacrifice  which 
Christ  was  to  institute  in  the  new  law,  from  the  same  ele- 
ments. No  other  sense  than  this  can  be  elicited  from  the 
Scripture  as  to  this  matter."  (The  End  of  Controversy, 
p.  246.) 

"St.  Paul,  after  David,  calls  Jesus  'a  priest  forever, 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.'     He  is  named  a  priest, 


Fsal»i  ex.  4  and  Hcb.  vii.  17.  213 

because  he  offers  sacrifice;  a  priest  forever,  because  liis 
sacrifice  is  perpetual ;  according  to  the  order  of  Melchize- 
dck,  because  he  offers  up  consecrated  bread  and  wine, 
which  were  prefigured  by  the  bfead  and  wine  offered  by 
'  Melchizedek,  the  priest  of  the  Most  High  God.'  "  {Faith 
of  our  Fathers,  p.  357.) 

On  these -statements  we  remark: — 

1.  There  is  no  record  of  a  sacrifice  offered  by  Melchize- 
dek in  Gen.  xiv.  18-20.  "  And  Melchizedek,  king  of 
Salem,  brought  forth  bread  and  wine ;  and  he  was  the 
priest  of  the  Most  High  God.  And  he  blessed  him,  and 
said ;  Blessed  be  Abram  of  the  most  high  God,  possessor 
of  heaven  and  earth :  And  blessed  be  the  most  high  God, 
which  hath  delivered  thine  enemies  into  thy  hand.  And  he 
gave  him  tithes  of  all." 

The  plain  meaning  of  the  words — "  And  Melchizedek, 
king  of  Salem,  brought  forth  bread  and  wine  " — is,  that  Mel- 
chizedek, in  his  character  of  king,  and  as  an  act  of  royal 
hospitality,  brought  forth  bread  and  wine,  the  common 
articles  of  food  in  that  day,  for  the  refreshment  of  Abram 
and  his  troops,  wearied  and  hungry  as  they  must  have 
been,  after  their  all-night's  march  and  battle  with  the 
enemy. 

So  Josephus  evidently  understood  it,  for  he  writes, — 
"  Xow  this  Melchizedek  supplied  Abram's  army  in  a  hos- 
pitable manner,  and  gave  them  provisions  in  abundance ; 
and  as  they  were  feasting,  he  began  to  praise  him,  and  to 
bless  God  for  subduing  his  enemies  under  him."  (Josephus' 
Ant.  of  Jeivs,  ch.  x.  §  2.) 

So  the  authors  of  the  Vulgate  evidently  understood  it. 
"  At  vero  Melchizedek  rex  Salem,  proferens  panem  et 
vinum."  Ohferro  is  the  Latin  word  for  offering  in  the 
sense  of  sacrificing.  From  it  we  have  our  English  words 
offering  and  oblation,  used  as  sacrificial  terms.  Profero 
is  never  used  in  such  a  sense.  The  Douay  Bible  renders 
the  Vulgate  literally  here, — "  But  Melchizedek,  the  king 
of  Salem,  bringing  forth  bread  and  wine." 

Melchizedek  is  mentioned  as  "  the  priest  of  the  most 
high  God,"  in  connection  with  the  record  which  immedi- 
ately follows,  "  And  he  blessed  him."     To  bless  was  as 


214  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

distinctly  a  function  of  the  ancient  priest  as  to  offer  sacri- 
fice. "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak 
unto  Aaron  and  unto  his  sons,  saying,  -On  this  wise  ye 
shall  bless  the  children  of*  Israel,  saying  unto  them :  The 
Lord  bless  thee,  and  keep  thee :  The  Lord  make  his  face 
shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  unto  thee :  The  Lord  lift 
up  his  countenance  upon  thee,  and  give  thee  peace.  And 
they  shall  put  my  name  upon  the  children  of  Israel,  and  I 
will  bless  them."  (Numb.  vi.  22-27.)  "And  Aaron  was 
separated,  that  he  should  sanctify  the  most  holy  things,  he 
and  his  sons  forever,  to  burn  incense  before  the  Lord,  to 
minister  unto  him,  and  to  bless  in  his  name  forever."  (1 
Chron.  xxiii.  13.)  So,  evidently,  Paul  understood  the 
record,  for  he  says  not  a  word  of  Melchizedek's  offering 
sacrifice  on  this  occasion,  but  he  does  say,  he  "  met  Abra- 
ham returning  from  the  slaughter  of  the  kings  and  blessed 
him."  (Heb.  vii.  1.) 

II.  In  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, the  chapter  in  which  Ps.  ex.  4,  is  quoted,  we  have 
the  typical  relation  between  Melchizedek  and  Christ  ex- 
plained at  large.  From  a  careful  examination  of  the 
whole  chapter  it  appears  that  Melchizedek's  priesthood 
was  typical  of  that  of  Christ. 

1st.  In  that  it  was  superior  to  the  priesthood  of  Aaron. 
This  is  proved  (1)  By  the  fact  that  Melchizedek  "  blessed 
Abram  " — "  and  without  contradiction  the  less  is  blessed 
of  the  better  " — and  (2)  By  the  other  fact,  that  Melchize- 
dek "  received  tithes  "  of  Abram.  And  that,  "  Levi  was 
yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father  when  Melchizedek  met  him," 
and  received  tithes  at  his  hands.     (Vs.  4-8.) 

2.  In  that  it  was  a  royal  priesthood,  the  offices  of  king 
and  priest  being  united  in  the  person  of  Melchizedek. 

"  For  this  Melchizedek,  was  king  of  Salem,  and  priest 
of  the  most  high  God."  And  the  Apostle's  words  would 
seem  to  imply  that  the  special  character  of  Melchizedek 
and  his  kingdom  was  typical  also ; — "  being  by  interpre- 
tation, king  of  righteousness,"  (the  signification  of  the 
name  Melchizedek  is,  king  of  righteousness)  "  and  after 
that  also  king  of  Salem,  which  is  king  of  peace."  In 
early  ages,    under  the   patriarchal    constitution    of    the 


Fsalvi  ex.  4  and  Ilcb.  vii.  17.  215 

Church  as  well  as  the  State,  the  offices  of  king  and  priest 
wore  often  united  in  the  same  person.  But  by  Moses' 
law,  under  which  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  established, 
they  were  separated ; — so  to  remain  until  united  in  the 
person  of  Christ.     (Vs.  1,  2.) 

3.  In  that  it  was  an  "  unchangeable  priesthood ;  "  i.  c,  a 
priesthood  that  is  not  to  be  transmitted — does  not  pass  to 
another.  Of  Melchizedec  the  Apostle  writes — "  Without 
lather,  without  mother,  without  descent,  (c^enealogy,  Dou- 
ay  Bible)  having  neither  beginning  of  days,  nor  end  of 
life."  On  these  words  the  following  excellent  note  is  given 
in  the  Douay  Bible — "  Not  that  he  had  no  father,  etc.,  but 
that  neither  his  father,  nor  his  pedigree,  nor  his  birth,  nor 
his  death,  are  set  down  in  Scripture."  Genealogy  was  "a 
matter  of  prime  importance  to  a  priest  of  the  sons  of  Levi," 
as  the  priesthood  descended  as  a  blood-inheritance  from 
father  to  son.  Not  so  was  it  with  Melchizedec: — Not  so 
is  it  with  Christ,  who  "  sprang  out  of  Judah ;  of  which 
tribe  Moses  spake  nothing  concerning  priesthood."  The 
Apostle  dwells  upon  this  particular,  the  perpetuity  of 
Christ's  priesthood,  as  typified  in  that  of  Melchizedec  as 
set  forth  in  the  Scripture  narrative — "  without  beginning 
of  days  nor  end  of  life ;  "  and  the  contrast  thus  presented 
to  the  priesthood  of  Aaron.  "  And  they  truly  were  many 
priests,  because  they  were  not  suffered  to  continue  by 
reason  of  death.  But  this  man  because  he  continueth  ever, 
hath   an  unchangeable  priesthood."     (Vss.  3,  15,  17,  23, 

Two  other  particulars,  in  which  the  priesthood  of  Christ 
is  superior  to  that  of  the  sons  of  Levi  are  mentioned,  viz. : 
His  being  made  a  priest  "  with  an  oath,"  Vs.  21,  and — 
His  not  needing  to  offer  a  "  daily  sacrifice,"  Vs.  27. — But 
in  neither  of  these  was  his  priesthood  typified  by  that  of 
Melchizedec. 

The  reader  has  now  all  the  facts  in  this  case  before  him ; 
and  we  ask  him  to  notice  : — 

(1)  That  in  this  particular  exposition  of  the  typical  re- 
lation of  Christ  to  Melchizedec,  though  written  after  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  established  in  the  Church,  and  when 
the  Christian  Hebrews  must  have  been  familiar  with  the 


216  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Stqjpcr. 

use  of  bread  and  wine  in  that  ordinance,  not  one  word  is 
said  about  Melchizedec's  bringing  forth  to  Abram,  either  as 
an  act  of  hospitality,  or  as  a  sacrifice  to  be  offered  to  God 
for  him,  bread  and  wine.  All  the  other  incidents  recorded 
in  Gen.  xiv.  18-20,  are  mentioned  more  or  less  particularly, 
but  not  a  word  is  said  of  this.  In  view  of  this  fact,  we 
say,  the  Romanist  must  be  mistaken  in  regarding  this  as 
the  one  grand  particular  in  which  the  typical  relation  of 
Melchizedec  to  Christ  consisted. 

(2)  That  the  particular  in  this  typical  relation  upon 
which  the  Apostle  dwells  at  greatest  length,  and  which  he 
returns  to,  once  and  again  in  the  course  of  the  chapter, 
(see  vs.  3,  16,  23,  24)  is  the  "  unchangeable  "  character  of 
Christ's  priesthood.  "  And  they  truly  were  many  priests, 
because  they  were  not  suffered  to  continue  by  reason  of 
death :  but  this  man,  because  he  contiuueth  ever,  hath  an 
unchangeable  priesthood."  Vs.  23,  24.  The  Greek  word 
here  rendered  unchangeable,  is  aparabaton,  which  Liddell 
and  Scott  define  :  "tiot passing  over  to  another,  especially  of 
state  oflaces."  This  is,  plainly,  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
used  here ;  where  the  priesthood  of  Christ  is  put  in  con- 
trast with  that  of  the  sons  of  Levi,  who  "  were  many 
priests,  because  they  were  not  suffered  to  continue  by  rea- 
son of  death."  The  sons  of  Levi,  living  but  the  natural  life 
of  man,  the  ofiice  must  be  transmitted,  must  pass,  by 
Moses'  law,  from  the  dying  father  to  the  living  son.  But 
Christ,  as  typified  in  Melchizedec,  being  ''  without  begin- 
ning of  days,  or  end  of  life,"  who  "  ever  liveth  "  (ver.  25) 
has  a  priesthood  which  "does  not  pass  over  to  another," 
an  unchangeable  priesthood.  This  fact,  thus  dwelt  upon 
in  the  vii.  Chap,  of  Hebrews,  is  irreconcilably  at  variance 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  Christ's 
priesthood  "  after  the  order  of  Melchizedec,"  is  a  priest- 
hood which  he  has  transmitted  to  the  Apostles,  "  and  their 
successors  in  the  priesthood. 

§  78.  Malachi  i.  11. 

"  For  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  unto  the  going  down  of 
the  same,  my  name  shall  be  great  among  the  Gentiles ; 


Malaehi  i.  11.  217 

and  in  every  place  iucense  shall  be  offered  unto  my  name, 
and  a  pure  offering:  for  my  name  shall  be  great  among 
the  heathen,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." 

"  And  this  (the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass)  is  that  clean  obla- 
"  tion,  which  cannot  be  defiled  by  any  unworthiness,  or 
"malice  of  those  that  offer  (it);  which  the  Lord  foretold 
"by  Malaehi,  was  to  be  offered  in  every  place,  clean  to  his 
'*'  name,  which  was  to  be  great  among  the  Gentiles." 
{Council  of  Trent,  xxii.  Session,  eh.  1.) 

"  Should  we  look  for  figures  and  prophecies  of  this 
"sacrifice  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  find,  in  the  first  place, 
"  that  its  institution  was  clearly  foretold  by  Malaehi  in 
"  these  words  :  '  From  the  rising  of  the  sun,  even  to  the 
"  going  down  thereof,  my  name  is  great  among  the  Gen- 
"  tiles,  and  in  every  place  there  is  sacrifice,  and  there  is 
"  offered  to  my  name  a  clean  oblation ;  for  my  name  is 
"  great  among  the  Gentiles,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.'  " 
{Catechism,  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  174.) 

"A  clean  oblation,  viz.,  the  precious  body  and  blood  of 
"  Christ  in  the  eucharistic  sacrifice."  {Douay  Bible,  note 
on  Mai.  i.  11.) 

" AVhithersoever  you  go,  you  will  find  the  'clean  obla- 
tion '  offered  on  Catholic  altars.  If  you  travel  from 
America  to  Europe,  to  Oceanica,  to  Africa,  to  Asia,  you 
will  see  our  altars  erected,  and  our  priests  daily  fulfilling 
the  words  of  the  Prophet,  by  offering  the  clean  oblation  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."  {Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p. 
354.) 

Is  this  Komish  interpretation  of  these  words  of  Ma- 
laehi a  correct  one  ?  Is  the  Prophet  here  foretelling  the 
offering  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  "  on  Catholic  altars  " 
throughout  the  world?  To  these  questions  we  answer 
— No. 

In  his  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  xix.  19,  "  In  that  day 
shall  there  be  an  altar  to  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  at  the  border  thereof  to  the  Lord," 
Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander  writes : — "  The  prophets  are  accus- 
tomed to  predict  the  prevalence  of  the  true  religion,  and 
the  practice  of  its  rites,  in  language  borrowed  from  the 
Mosaic  and  Patriarchal  institutions.  As  we  might  now . 
10 


218  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Sapper. 

speak  of  a  missionary  pitching  his  tent  at  Hebron,  or  at 
Shechera,  without  intending  to  describe  the  precise  form 
of  his  habitation;  so  the  Prophet  represents  the  converts 
to  the  true  faith  as  erecting  an  altar  and  a  pillar  to  the 
Lord  in  Egypt,  as  Abraham  and  Jacob  did  in  Canaan.  A 
still  more  exact  illustration  is  afforded,  by  the  frequent  use 
among  ourselves  of  the  word  altar  to  denote  the  practice 
of  devotion,  especially  in  families." 

On  this  subject  Lowth  remarks — "The  Prophets,  when 
they  speak  of  the  Gentiles  coming  into  the  Church,  ex- 
press their  serving  the  true  God  by  such  acts  of  devotion 
as  were  most  in  use  in  their  own  time,  and  therefore 
could  be  understood  by  those  to  whom  they  directed 
their  discourses :  such  were  offering  sacrifices,  and  keep- 
ing the  solemn  feasts  at  Jerusalem,  to  which  the  Gentiles 
from  all  parts  should  resort,  as  several  prophecies  ex- 
press their  conversion."  (Lowth' s  Cojninentai'y ,  Isa.  xix. 
19.) 

As  illustrating  this  remark,  let  the  reader  consider  such 
passages  as  the  following,  viz. — "  And  many  people  shall 
go  and  say,  Come  ye,  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain 
of  the  Lord,  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob ;  and  he 
will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  his  paths ;  for 
out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the 
Lord  from  Jerusalem."  (Isa.  ii.  3.)  *' And  it  shall  come 
to  pass  on  that  day,  that  the  great  trumpet  shall  be  blown, 
and  they  shall  come  which  were  ready  to  perish  in  the 
land  of  Assyria,  and  the  outcasts  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
and  shall  worship  the  Lord  in  the  holy  mount  at  Jerusa- 
lem." (Isa.  xxvii.  13.)  "And  they  shall  declare  my  glory 
among  the  Gentiles.  And  they  shall  bring  all  your  breth- 
ren for  an  offering  unto  the  Lord,  out  of  all  nations,  upon 
horses,  and  in  chariots,  and  in  litters,  and  upon  mules,  and 
upon  swift  beasts,  to  my  holy  mountain  Jerusalem,  saith 
the  Lord,  as  the  children  of  Israel  bring  an  offering  in  a 
clean  vessel  into  the  house  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  from  one  new-moon  to  another,  and 
from  one  Sabbath  to  another,  shall  all  flesh  come  to  wor- 
ship before  me."  (Isa.  Ixvi.  19,  20,  23.)  "  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  every  one  that  is  left  of  all  the  nations 


Malachi  i.  11,  219. 

which  came  against  Jerusalem,  shall  even  go  up  from  year 
to  year  to  worship  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  to 
keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  And  it  shall  be,  that  whoso 
will  not  come  up  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  unto 
Jerusalem  to  worship  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  even 
upon  thera  shall  be  no  rain."  (Zech.  xiv.  16,  17.)   , 

Apply  the  principles  of  a  literal  interpretation  to  these 
prophecies, — and  we  might  quote  many  others  of  similar 
character, — as  the  Eomanist  does  to  the  prophecy  of 
]\Ialachi,  in  order  to  make  .it  foretell  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass,  and  what  will  be  the  result  ?  Plainly,  this.  That 
the  Prophets  distinctly  foretell — not  the  establishment  of 
the  Romish  ceremonial  of  worship  throughout  the  world, 
but  the  re-establishment  of  the  old  ceremonial  which  be- 
longed to  the  tabernacle  and  the  temple ; — not  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  universal  church,  with  Rome  as  its  centre, 
and  the  Pope  as  its  head;  but  such  a  church  with  Jerusa- 
lem as  its  centre,  and  a  descendant  of  Aaron  as  its  high- 
priest. 

The  reader  is  now  prepared  to  appreciate  aright,  the 
remarks  of  Lowth  on  the  passage  under  examination. 
"1)1  evcri/  place  incense  shall  be  offered  to  my  narne  and  a 
pure  offering."  The  prophet  describes  the  Christian  sacri- 
fices of  prayer  and  thanksgiving,  by  the  outward  rites  of 
the  Jewish  worship.  Incense  was  looked  upon  as  a  figure 
or  emblem  of  prayer  by  the  Jews  themselves, — "  Let  my 
prayer  be  set  forth  before  thee  as  incense."  (Ps.  cxli.  2.) 
This  spiritual  service,  the  prophet  saith,  shall  be  offered 
up  in  every  place,  whereas  the  Jewish  worship  was  con- 
fined to  the  temple.  The  words  of  Christ  are  a  com- 
mentary on  this  text — "  The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is, 
when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusa- 
lem, worship  the  Father,  .  .  .  when  the  true  worshippers 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth,"  (Jno.  iv. 
21,  23); — where  the  spirit  is  opposed  to  the  carnal  ordi- 
nances of  the  Jewish  service,  such  as  meats,  and  drinks, 
and  bloody  sacrifices ;  and  truth  is  used  by  way  of  dis- 
tinction from  the  external  rituals,  which  were  only  "  a 
shadow  of  things  to  come."  {Lowth' s  Commentary,  Mai. 
i.  11.) 


220  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

§  79.  Hebrews  vii.  12. 

"  For  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made  of 
necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law." 

"  Whereas,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
"  Catholic  Church  has  received,  from  the  institution  of 
"  Christ,  the  holy  visible  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist ;  it 
"  must  needs  also  be  confessed,  that  there  is,  in  that  Church, 
"a  new,  visible,  and  external  priesthood,  into  which  the  old 
"  has  been  translated.  Heb.  vii.  12."  {Council  of  Trent, 
xxiii.  Session.  Ch.  I.) 

"  The  Apostle  also  observes  that  the  priesthood  of  the 
New  Law  was  substituted  for  that  of  the  Old  Law.  (Heb. 
vii.  12).  Now  the  principal  ofiice  of  priests  has  always 
been  to  offer  sacrifice.  Priest  and  sacrifice  are  as  closely 
identified  as  judge  and  court."  {Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p. 
357.) 

If  the  reader  will  turn  to  ch.  vii.  of  Hebrews,  and  care- 
fully read  vers.  11-18,  he  will  see  that  the  change  of  priest- 
hood mentioned  in  ver.  12,  is,  beyond  all  question,  the 
change  from  the  Levitical  priesthood,  established  in  the 
family  of  Aaron,  to  the  personal  priesthood  of  Christ,  by 
the  oath  of  the  Lord — "  made  a  high-priest  for  ever  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedec,"  and  not  to  any  order  of  human 
priests  under  the  New  Law,  or  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion. And  this  priesthood  of  Christ  is  expressly  declared 
to  be  "  an  unchangable  priesthood,"  i.  e.,  a  priesthood  which 
cannot  be  transmitted ;  which  does  not  pass  over,  like  that 
of  Aaron,  from  the  dying  father  to  the  living  son.  (See 
§77.) 

§  80.  Hebrews  xiii.  10. 

"  We  have  an  altar,  whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat 
which  serve  the  tabernacle." 

"  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  frequently  al- 
ludes to  the  sacrijice  of  the  mass.  '  We  have  an  altar,'  he 
says,  '  whereof  they  cannot  eat  who  serve  the  tabernacle.' " 
The  Apostle  here  plainly  declares  that  the  Christian 
Church  has  its  altars  as  well  as  the  Jewish  Synagogue. 
An  altar  necessarily  supposes  a  sacrifice,  without  which  it 
has  no  meaning."     {Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p.  357.) 


Hebrews  xiii  10.  221 

(1)  Where  did  Archbishop  Gibbons  learn  that  the  Jew- 
ish synagogue  had  an  altar  /  Our  best  writers  on  Jowisli 
Antiquities  make  no  mention  of  such  a  fact ;  and  I  think 
it  will  be  news  to  the  Jews  themselves.  The  tabernacle, 
and  afterwai'ds  the  temple,  had  its  altars ;  and  under 
Moses'  Law  the  erection  of  any  other  altai's  than  these  was 
prohibited  under  most  solemn  sanctions.  See  Deut.  xii,5-18. 
The  observance  of  this  distinction  between  the  Synagogue 
and  the  Temple  is  a  matter  of  importance  just  here,  as 
many  Protestants,  Presbyterians,  for  example,  hold  that, 
the  worship  of  the  Christian  Church  has  been  modeled  on 
that  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue. 

(2)  That  this  passage  may  serve  the  purpose  for  which 
it  is  quoted  above,  the  phrase,  "  we  have  an  altar,"  must 
be  understood  literally, — the  altar  must  be  a  material 
altar,  like  that  of  the  old  Temple,  or  of  the  Eomish 
churches  of  the  present  day.  If  so,  then  the  remaining 
portions  of  the  verse  must  be  understood  literally  also,  and 
"  the  tabernacle"  spoken  of  must  be  a  literal  tabernacle. 
Archbishop  Gibbons  finds  those  who  have  a  right  to  eat  of 
the  altar  in  his  own  Church  : — but  where  will  he  find  those 
who  "serve  the  tabernacle?"  He  cannot  find  them 
among  the  Jews,  even  those  of  Paul's  day,  for  among  them, 
the  tabernacle  had  then  given  place  to  the  temple  more 
than  a  thousand  years,  and  the  temple  itself  was  on  the 
brink  of  utter  destruction.  If  they  are  to  be  found,  in 
our  day,  it  cannot  be  among  the  Protestant  denominations, 
for  none  of  them  has  ever  possessed  a  tabernacle  as  a  place 
of  worship.  Where,  then,  are  those  that  serve  the  taber- 
nacle to  be  found  ? 

(3)  This  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, which  is  the  concluding  chapter  of  the  Epistle, 
bears  the  title  of  " Divers  admonitions  and  exhortations" 
(Douay  Bible) — "  Godly  Admonitions,"  (Authorized  Ver- 
sion) in  which  the  writer  makes  a  practical  application  of 
the  great  truths  set  forth  in  the  body  of  the  Epistle.  In 
conformity  with  this  idea  of  the  chapter,  the  Douay  Bible 
has  this  excellent  note  on  ver,  13.  "  Jesus  .  .  .  suffered 
without  the  gate ;  Let  us  go  forth  therefore,  to  him  tvithovt 
the   camp,  bearing  his  reproach ;" — that   is,  bearing  his 


222  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

cross.  It  is  an  exhortation  to  them  to  be  willing  to  suffer, 
with  Christ,  reproaches,  persecutions,  and  even  death,  if 
they  desired  to  partake  of  the  benefit  of  his  suffering  for 
man's  redemption."  The  expression,  "go  forth  to  him 
without  the  camp  "  is  figurative  : — but  the  figure  is  so  ob- 
vious a  one  that  the  Apostle's  readers  were  in  no  danger 
of  misunderstanding  his  meaning. 

In  the  same  spirit  should  ver.  10  be  interpreted.  Through- 
out the  Epistle,  Paul  has  labored  to  guard  the  Hebrew 
Christians  against  the  arts  and  arguments  of  Judaizing 
teachers;  who  sought  to  bring  them  into  bondage  to  the 
ceremonial  law  established  in  Moses'  day.  These  Judaiz- 
ing teachers  are,  evidently,  the  persons  spoken  of  as  those 
"which  serve  the  tabernacle."  The  central  object  in  their 
worship  was  an  altar,  on  which  were  offered  no  other  or 
better  sacrifices  than  "  bulls  and  goats,"  which  sacrifices 
the  Apostle  declares  "  can  never  take  away  sin."  We 
have  a  better  altar  than  that  of  the  tabernacle,  says  Paul, 
— even  the  cross  upon  which  "  Christ  was  ow eg  offered  to 
bear  the  sins  of  many."  As  under  tlie  Old  Testament 
dispensation,  the  worshipper  was  accustomed  to  eat  a  por- 
tion of  the  flesh  of  the  animals  offered  upon  God's  altar, 
thus  signifying  his  communion  with  the  God  of  the  altar 
(see  1  Cor.  x.  16-20)  as  his  reconciled  God,  reconciled 
through  the  sacrifice : — Paul  here  says,  respecting  these 
Judaizing  teachers,  they  have  no  right  to  eat  of  our  altar, 
they  have  no  communion  with  Christ — their  religion  is 
essentially  different  from  ours.  Thus  correctly  interpre- 
ted, interpreted  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  the  Douay 
Bible  interprets  the  verses  which  immediately  follow,  this 
passage  furnishes  no  authority  for  a  literal  altar  in  Chris- 
tian Churches  in  our  day. 

This  passage  with  Heb.  vii.  12  (see  §  79)  and  Heb.  v.  6 
(see  §  77)  are  all  the  Scripture  authority  Archbishop  Gib- 
bons quotes,  in  justification  of  his  remark — "St.  Paul,  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  frequently  alludes  to  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  mass." 

§  81.  Acts  xiii.  2. 
"And  as  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the 


Acts  xiii.  2.  223 

Hoh'  Ghost  said,  Separate  mo  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the 
work  whereunto  I  have  called  them." 

"  In  compliance  with  the  command  of  our  Lord,  the 
adorable  sacritice  of  the  altar  has  been  daily  renewed  in  the 
Church,  from  the  death  of  our  Saviour  till  the  present  time, 
and  will  be  perpetuated  till  time  shall  be  no  more.  In  the 
Acts,  it  is  said  that  while  Saul  and  others  were  ministering 
(or  as  the  Greek  text  expresses  it,  sacrificing)  to  the  Lord, 
and  fasting,  the  Holy  Spirit  said  to  them:  'Set  apart  for 
me  Saul  and  Barnabas.' "  [Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p. 
356.) 

(1)  If  the  Greek  text  properly  reads  sacrificing,  why  is 
it  that  neither  the  Latin  Vulgate  nor  the  Douay  Bible  so 
translate  it?  The  Latin  Vulgate  reads — " Ilinistrantibus 
autemiUis  Domino,"  and  the  Douay  Bible — "And  as  they 
were  ministering  to  the  Lord.'' 

(2)  The  Greek  word  used  is  leitourgonton.  On  this 
word,  Alford  remarks — "  ministering  is  the  only  word  ad- 
equately to  render  it."  {Alford' s  Neiv  Test,  in  loc.)  In 
proof  of  this  statement,  take  the  following  instances  of  the 
use  of  this  word  and  its  cognates  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Kom.  xiii.  6.  "For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also; 
for  they  "  (the  civil  rulers,  ver.  3)  "  are  God's  ministers 
(leitourgoi)  attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing." 

2  Cor.  ix.  12.  "  For  the  administration  of  this  service 
(leitourgias)  not  only  supplieth  the  wants  of  the  saints,  but 
is  abundant  also  by  many  thanksgivings  unto  God."  Here 
the  "  service  "  spoken  of,  as  appeal's  from  the  context,  was 
the  distribution  of  the  alms  collected  for  the  relief  of  the 
poor  saints  at  Jerusalem. 

E-om.  XV.  27.  "  For  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made  par- 
takers of  their  spiritual  things,  their  duty  is  also  to  minister 
(leitourgesai)  unto  them  in  carnal  things."  Here  the  idea  of 
religious  service  of  any  kind  is  expressly  excluded. 

Heb.  i.  14.  "  Are  they  not  all  ministering  {leitourgiha) 
spirits,  sent  forth  to  minister  for  them  who  shall  be  heirs 
of  salvation?"  The  beings  here  spoken  of  are  the  angels, 
and  surely  no  one  can  believe  that  their  ministry  to  the 
saints  is  that  of  sacrificing  priests. 


224  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

§  82.  Christian  sacrifices  recogyiized  in  the  New  Testarnent. 

As  the  New  Testament  recognizes  the  existence  of  Priests 
in  the  Christian  Church  (see  §  74),  so  it  tells  us  of  sacri- 
fices to  be  offered  by  them.  The  nature  of  these  sacrifices 
is  set  forth  in  such  passages  as  the  following,  viz. — 

Eom.  xii.  1.  "  I  beseech  you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the 
mercies  of  God,  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacri- 
fice, holy,  acceptable  to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable 
service." 

Here,  the  Priests  (sacrificers)  are  the  "  brethren  " — all 
Christians,  and  the  sacrifice  is  "their  bodies,"  i.  e.,  them- 
selves, as  living  men.  That  which  was  once  laid  upon 
God's  altar  was  thenceforth  "  holy,"  i.  e.,  consecrated,  given 
up  to  God  as  his  property,  and  could  not  be  appropriated 
again  by  man,  save  as  God  appointed,  without  sacrilege. 
Such  an  offering  of  themselves  the  Apostle  declares  is  (1) 
"  acceptable  to  God,"  and  (2)  the  Christians'  "reasonable 
service :  "  or  "  rational  worship,"  as  Brown  renders  it, 
rational  as  in  contrast  with  the  ceremonial  worship  ordain- 
ed by  Moses'  law.  St.  Paul  in  his  own  life  furnishes  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  kind  of  sacrifice  he  here  urges 
upon  the  brethren  at  P^ome. 

Phil.  iv.  16-18.  "  Even  in  Thessalonica  ye  sent  once  and 
again  unto  my  necessity.  Not  because  I  desire  a  gift;  but 
I  desire  fruit  that  may  abound  to  your  account.  But  I 
have  all,  and  abound.  I  am  full,  having  received  of  Epaph- 
roditus  the  things  which  were  sent  from  you,  an  odor  of  a 
sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well-pleasing  to  God." 

The  "  sacrifice  acceptable,  well-pleasing  to  God  "  here 
spoken  of  is,  evidently,  that  "ministry  in  carnal  things" 
with  which  the  members  of  the  Church  at  Philippi  had  re- 
lieved the  necessities  of  the  Apostle ;  necessities  arising 
out  of  his  entire  devotion  to  his  missionary  labors. 

Hebrews  xiii.  15,  16.  "By  him  (i.  e.  Christ)  therefore, 
let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continually,  that 
is,  the  fruit  of  our  lips,  giving  thanks  to  his  name.  But  to 
do  good,  and  to  communicate  forget  not;  for  with  such 
sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased." 

Here,  "  praise  "  and  "  thanksgiving,"  the  "  fruit  of  the 


Christ's  Sacrifice  on  Calvary.  225 

lips  "  are  spoken  of  as  a  sacrifice  to  be  offered  by  all 
Christians,  and  that  continually ; — and  good  deeds,  espe- 
cially deeds  of  charity,  are  spoken  of  as  sacrifices  with 
which  God  is  well  pleased: — the  Apostle  here  presenting 
the  same  truth,  in  substance,  presented  in  Phil.  iv.  16-18. 

1  Peter  ii.  4,  5.  "  To  whom  coming  as  unto  a  living  stone, 
disallowed  indeed  of  men,  but  chosen  of  God,  and  precious, 
ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house, 
a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  accepta- 
ble to  God  by  Jesus  Christ." — "  Spiritual,""  as  contradis- 
tinguished from  those  offered  under  Moses'  law,  which  in 
Heb.  ix.  10  are  styled  "carnal:"  such  as  the  praise  and 
thanksgiving  mentioned  above. 

Such  a  sacrifice  as  this,  the  Council  of  Trent  expressly 
declares  the  Mass  is  not.  "  If  any  one  saith  that  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  Mass  is  only  a  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanks- 
giving ...  let  him  be  anathema." 

§  83.   Christ's  sacrifice  on  Calvary  the  one  perfect  propi- 
tiatory sacrifice. 

That  Christ's  bloody  sacrifice,  offered  upon  Calvary  more 
than  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  is  the  one  only  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  for  sinners  ;  that  it  cannot  be  repeated,  that 
it  needs  no  repetition,  is  a  truth  taught  us  in  Scripture, 
as  clearly  as  it  is  possible  that  words  should  express  a 
truth. 

Heb.  X.  10-14.  "  By  the  which  will  (i.  e.,  by  the  will  of 
God,  ver.  9,)  we  are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all.  And  every  priest 
standeth  daily  ministering,  and  offering  oftentimes  the  same 
sacrifices,  which  can  never  take  away  sins :  but  this  man, 
after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sin  for  ever,  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  God ;  from  henceforth  expecting  till 
his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool.  For  by  one  offering  he 
hath  perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified." 

"  Once  for  all,"  because  it  made  true  propitiation,  and, 
so  was  unlike  the  typical  sacrifices  the  priests  of  Aaron's 
line  were  accustomed  to  offer  daily,  oftentimes,  "which 
could  never  take  away  sin."  "  One  sacrifice  for  sin,"  but 
one  was  needed,  seeing  the  victim  was  the  incarnate  Son 
10* 


226  The  Docti  ine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

of  God ;  and  as  signifying  its  completeness,  and  its  accept- 
ance by  Jehovah,  the  ofi'erer  "  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  God."  "  One  offering,''  no  other  is  wanted,  for  this  one 
has  done  the  work  completely,  "has  perfected  forever  them 
that  are  sanctified." 

Heb.  ix.  11,  12.  "  But  Christ  being  come  a  high -priest 
of  good  things  to  come,  by  a  greater  and  more  perfect 
tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this 
building,  neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by 
his  own  blood  he  entered  in  onceiwio  the  holy  place,  having 
obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us." 

The  Apostle  here  speaks  of  Christ's  atoning  work  as  the 
reality  which  was  typified  in  the  doings  of  the  high-priest, 
once  a  year,  on  the  great  day  of  atonement.  On  that  day 
the  high-priest  was  accustomed  to  enter  into  the  holy 
place,  with  "  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves  "  to  make  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  the  people.  And  this  he  did  every 
year.  Not  so  with  our  high-priest  having  entered  once, 
with  his  own  blood,  there  is  no  need  that  he  should  repeat 
the  sacrifice,  for  by  that  one  offering  he  has  obtained 
"  eternal  redemption  for  us." 

Heb.  ix.  25-28.  "  Nor  yet  that  he  should  ofi'er  himself 
often,  as  the  high-priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place  every 
year  with  blood  of  others :  for  then  must  he  often  have 
suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the  world  :  but  now  once, 
in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  And  as  it  is  appointed  unto 
men  once  to  die,  but  after  this  the  judgment:  so  Christ 
was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many ;  and  unto  them 
that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear  the  second  time  without 
sill  unto  salvation." 

How  effectually  death  does  its  work  upon  the  human 
body : — once  done,  the  work  cannot  be  repeated.  Just  so 
effectually,  the  Apostle  declares,  did  Christ  do  the  work 
he  undertook  when  he  died  upon  Calvary.  His  work  can 
no  more  be  repeated  than  death  can.  Blessed  be  God,  the 
deep  humiliation  and  bitter  agony  of  the  Cross  are  never 
to  be  repeated.  Christ  "shall  appear  a  second  time,  to 
them  that  look  for  him,"  but  it  shall  be  "  without  sin,  unto 
salvation." 


The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mcuis.  227 


CnAPTER  X. 

THE  SACRIFICE  OF  THE  MASS  (CONTINUED.) 

1 84.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  defined,  g  85.  The  Sacrifice  of  .the  Mass  propitia- 
tory. §86.  The  Mass  an  unbloody  Sacrifice.  §87.  The  propitiatory  worth  of 
the  Mass  practically  illustrated.    §88.  Masses  in  honor  of  the  Saints. 

§  84.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  Defined. 
"  And  for  as  much  as,  in  this  divine  sacrifice  which  is 
"  celebrated  in  the  Mass,  that  same  Christ  is  contained  and 
"  immolated  in  an  unbloody  manner  who  once  offered  him- 
"  self  in  a  bloody  manner  on  the  altar  of  the  cross  ;  the 
"holy  Synod  teaches  that  this  sacrifice  is  truly  propitiato- 
"  ry,  and  that  by  means  thereof  this  is  effected,  that  we 
"  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  in  seasonable  aid,  {Heh.  iv. 
16, — to  help  in  time  of  need.  Auth.  Vers)  if  we  draw 
"  nigh  unto  God,  contrite  and  penitent,  with  a  sincere 
"  heart  and  upright  faith,  with  fear  and  reverence.  For  the 
"  Lord,  appeased  by  the  oblation  thereof,  and  granting  the 
"  grace  and  gift  of  penitence,  forgives  even  heinous  crimes 
"  and  sins.  For  the  victim  is  one  and  the  same,  now  of- 
"  fering  by  the  ministry  of  the  priest,  who  then  offered 
"  himself  on  the  cross,  the  manner  alone  of  offering  being 
"  different.  The  fruits  indeed  of  which  oblation — of  that 
"  bloody  one— to  wit,  are  received  most  plentifully  through 
"  this  unbloody  one;  so  far  is  this  (latter)  from  derogating 
"  in  any  way  from  that  (former  oblation).  Wherefore,  not 
"  only  for  the  sins,  punishments,  satisfactions,  and  other 
"  necessities  of  the  faithful  who  are  living,  but  also  for 
"  those  who  are  departed  in  Christ,  and  who  are  not  as 
"  yet  fully  purified,  is  it  rightly  offered,  agreeably  to  a 
"  tradition  of  the  Apostles."  {Council  of  Trent,  xxii.  Ses- 
sion. Ch.  ii.) 


228  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"Canon  III.  If  any  one  saith  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
"  mass  is  only  a  sacrifice  of  praise  and  of  thanksgiving;  or, 
"  that  it  is  a  bare  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  consum- 
"  mated  on  the  cross,  but  not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice ;  or, 
"  that  it  profits  him  only  who  receives ;  and  that  it  ought 
"  not  to  be  offered  for  the  living  and  the  dead,  for  sins, 
"pains,  satisfactions,  and  other  necessities;  let  him  be 
"anathema."     {Council  of  Trent,  xxii.  Session.) 

"The-  Eucharist  was  instituted  by  our  Lord  for  two 
"  great  purposes,  to  be  the  celestial  food  of  the  soul,  pre- 
"  serving  and  supporting  spiritual  life,  and  to  give  to  the 
"Church  a  perpetual  sacrifice,  by  which  sin  may  be  expia- 
"  ted,  and  our  heavenly  Father,  whom  our  crimes  have 
"  often  grievously  oflfended,  may  be  turned  from  wrath  to 
"  mercy,  from  the  severity  of  just  vengeance  to  the  exer- 
"cise  of  benignant  clemency.  Of  this  the  paschal  lamb, 
"  which  was  offered  and  eaten  by  Israel  as  a  sacrament 
"and  sacrifice,  was  a  lively  figure." 

"  We,  therefore,  confess  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is 
"one  and  the  same  sacrifice  with  that  of  the  cross;  the 
"  victim  is  one  and  the  same,  Christ  Jesus,  who  offered 
"himself,  once  only,  a  bloody  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  the 
"  cross.  The  bloody  and  unbloody  victim  is  still  one  and 
"  the  same,  and  the  oblation  of  the  cross  is  daily  renewed 
"  in  the  eucharistic  sacrifice,  in  obedience  to  the  command 
"  of  our  Lord  ;  *  This  do  for  a  commemoration  of  me.' 
"  (Luke  xxii.  19).  The  priest  is  also  the  same,  Christ  our 
"  Lord :  the  ministers  who  offer  this  sacrifice,  consecrate 
"  the  holy  mysteries,  not  in  their  own,  but  in  the  person  of 
"Christ.  This  the  words  of  consecration  declare,  the 
"priest  does  not  say:  'This  is  the  body  of  Christ,'  but— 
"  *  This  is  my  body  ; '  and  thus  invested  with  the  character 
"  of  Christ,  he  changes  the  substances  of  the  bread  and  wine 
"  into  the  substance  of  his  real  body  and  blood.  That  the 
"  holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  therefore,  is  not  only  a  sacri- 
"  fice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  or,  a  commemoration  of 
"  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross ;  but  also  a  sacrifice  of  propi- 
"  tiation,  by  which  God  is  appeased  and  rendered  pro- 
"pitious,  the  pastor  will  teach  as  a  dogma  defined  by  the 
"unerring  authority  of  a  General  Council  of  the  Church." 


The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  rropitlatory.  229 

"  The  pastor  will  also  teach,  that  such  is  the  efficacy  of 
"this  sacrifice  that  its  benefits  extend  not  only  to  the  cele- 
"  brant  and  communicant,  but  also  to  all  the  faithful, 
"  whether  living  or  numbered  among  those  who  have  died 
"  in  the  Lord,  but  whose  sins  have  not  yet  been  fully  ex- 
"  piated.  According  to  apostolic  tradition  the  most 
"  authentic,  it  is  not  less  available  when  offered  for  them 
"  than  when  ottered  in  atonement  for  the  sins,  and  in  alle- 
"  viation  of  the  punishments,  the  satisfactions,  the  calami- 
"  ties,  or  for  the  relief  of  the  necessities  of  the  living.  It 
"  is  hence  easy. to  perceive,  that  the  Mass,  whenever  and 
"  wherever  ottered,  because  conducive  to  the  common  in- 
"  terest  and  salvation  of  all,  is  to  be  considered  common  to 
"  all  the  faithful." 

"  As,  in  his  passion,  our  Lord   merited  and  satisfied  for 

■  "  us,  so  in  the  oblation  of  this  sacrifice,  which  is  a  bond  of 

"  Christian  unity,  Christians  merit  the  fruit  of  his  passion, 

"and  satisfy  for  sin."  {Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 

"pp.  173,  175,  176.) 

According  to  the  teaching  of  the  Council  of  Trent  the 
Mass  is  (1)  "  A  propitiatory  sacrifice,"  and  yet,  it  is  effi- 
cient because  through  it  "  the  fruits  of  Christ's  sacrifice 
are  most  plentifully  received." 

(2)  It  is  the  same  with  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  the  cross, 
and  yet  an  unbloody  sacrifice. 

§  85.   The  saenfice  of  the  Mass  propitiatory. 

The  Council  of  Trent  declares  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  "is  truly  propitiatory,"  and  therefore  to  be  ofi'ered, 
"not  only  for  the  sins,  punishments,  satisfactions,  and 
other  necessities  of  the  living,  but  also,  for  those  who  are 
departed  in  Christ,  and  who  are  not  as  yet  fully  purified." 

"Expiation  and  propitiation  are  correlative  terms.  The 
sinner,  or  his  guilt  is  expiated  ;  God,  or  his  justice  is  pro- 
pitiated. Guilt  must,  from  the  nature  of  God,  be  visited 
with  punishment,  which  is  the  expression  of  God's  disap- 
probation of  sin.  Guilt  is  expiated,  in  the  Scriptural  re- 
presentation covered,  by  satisfaction,  i.  e.,  by  vicarious 
punishment.       God  is  thereby  rendered  propitious,  i.  e., 


230  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

it  is  now  consistent  with  his  nature  to  pardon  and  bless 
tiie  sinner."  {Hodges  Theology,   Vol.  II.  p.  478.) 

In  this  sense  is  the  word  propitiation  uniformly  used  in 
Scripture.  Kom.  iii.  25.  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to 
be  a  propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his 
righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God."  The  propitiation  here, 
is  through  Christ's  blood,  shed  for  the  sinner,  his  life — 
"for  the  life  is  in  the  blood" — given  in  place  of  the  for- 
feited life  of  the  sinner ;  and  so,  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  the  remission  of  his  sins  is  declared,  made  evident  to  all. 
1  John  ii.  2.  "  And  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ; 
and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world."  Does  any  one  ask,  how?  John  answers,  in  the 
immediate  context — "  and  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his 
Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  (i.  7.)  1  John  iv.  10. 
"  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved 
us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  i\iQ  propitiation  for  our  sins." 
And  this  propitiation  he  became,  when,  in  our  stead,  he 
offered  himself  a  bloody  sacrifice  upon  Calvary. 

In  this,  its  theological  and  scriptural  sense,  to  render 
favorable  by  expiation,  the  Council  of  Trent  seems  to  use 
the  word: — for — (1)  It  declares  that  this  propitiation 
avails,  "  not  only  for  the  sins,  punishments,  satisfactions, 
and  other  necessities  of  the  living,  but  also  for  those  who 
are  departed  in  Christ,  and  who  are  not  as  yet  fully  puri- 
fied ;  " — and  (2)  It  uses  terms  as  its  equivalent  which  have 
this  meaning — e.  g.,  "  by  which  sin  may  be  expiated,''  "  by 
which  God  is  appeased  and  rendered  propitious,"  "  ofi'ered 
in  atonement  for  sin,"  and  to  ^'satisfy  for  sin." 

This  on  the  one  hand; — but  then  on  the  other,  this  same 
Council  of  Trent  declares, — "  The  fruits,  indeed,  of  which 
oblation,  of  that  bloody  one  to  wit,  are  received  most 
plentifully  through  this  unbloody  one;  so  far  is  this 
(latter)  from  derogating  in  any  way  from  that  (former 
oblation)." 

Here,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  appears,  not  as  effecting 
any  propitiation — making  any  atonement  for  sin — in 
itself;  but  simply  as  a  means  by  which,  or  channel  through 
which,  the  fruits  of  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  the  cross  are 


Tlic  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  Propitiatory.         231 

received  most  plentifully.  That  the  reader  may  see  how 
modern  Romish  writers  present  this  point  of  doctrine,  let 
him  carefully  consider  the  following  from  the  pen  of  Arch- 
bishop Gibbons : 

"  But  if  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  is  all-sufficient,  what 
need  then,  you  will  say,  is  there  of  a  commemorative 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass  ?  I  would  ask  a  Protestant  in  re- 
turn, Why  do  you  pray,  and  go  to  church,  and  why  were 
you  baptized,  and  receive  the  communion,  and  the  rite  of 
confij-mation  ?  What  is  the  use  of  all  these  exercises,  if 
the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  is  all-sufficient  ?  You  will  tell 
me  that  in  all  these  acts  you  apply  to  yourself  the  merits 
of  Christ's  passion.  I  will  tell  you,  in  like  manner,  that 
in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  I  apply  to  myself  the  merits 
of  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  from  which  the  Mass  derives 
all  its  efficacy.  Christ,  indeed,  by  his  death,  made  a  full 
atonement  for  our  sins.  But  he  has  not  released  us  from 
the  obligation  of  co-operating  with  him  by  applying  his 
merits  to  our  souls.  And  what  better  and  more  effica- 
cious way  can  we  have  of  participating  in  his  merits,  than 
by  assisting  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar,  where  we  vividly 
recall  to  mind  his  sufi'erings,  where  Calvary  is  represented 
before  us,  where  '  we  show  the  death  of  the  Lord  until  he 
come,'  and  where  we  draw  abundantly  to  our  souls  the 
fruits  of  his  passion,  by  drinking  of  the  same  blood  that 
was  shed  on  the  cross?"  {Faith  of  our  Fathers,  pp. 
360-1.) 

According  to  this  representation  of  Dr.  Gibbons,  the 
Mass  is  no  real  sacrifice, — makes  no  true  propitiation  for 
sin,  after  all.  It  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  what  Pro- 
testants are  accustomed  to  speak  of  as  "a  means  of  grace  " 
— to  use  his  own  illustrations,  like  "  prayer,  going  to 
church,  receiving  baptism  and  the  communion  and  the  rite 
of  confirmation ;  "  and  it  produces  its  effect  in  the  same 
way,  by  the  vivid  presentation  of  truth  to  the  worshipper. 

But,  if  we  adopt  this  view,  what  then  shall  we  do  with 
the  case  of  masses  off'ered  for  the  dead  ?  The  Council  of 
Trent  declares  that  masses  are  "  rightly  offered,  for  those 
who  are  departed  in  Christ,  and  who  are  not  as  yet  fully 
purified,"  i.  e.,  for  the  dead  detained  in  Purgatory  :  and 


232  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

we  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  no  inconsiderable  por- 
tion of  the  masses  in  our  day  are  offered  for  the  dead,  and 
not  the  Kving.  Means  of  grace,  such  as  going  to  church, 
receiving  the  communion,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  if 
we  class  it  with  these,  as  Dr.  Gibbons  does,  are  of  no  avail 
for  the  dead, — they  cannot  see,  they  cannot  hear,  they 
cannot  be  affected  through  the  senses.  Of  what  avail  then, 
if  this  be  its  nature,  can  the  sacrifice  of  the  IMass  be  in 
the  case  of  the  dead  ?  The  only  hypothesis  upon  which 
it  can  avail  in  this  case,  is  that  it  is  truly  propitiatory. 

Here,  then,  is  the  dilemma  in  which  the  Eomanist  is 
placed : — 

Either, — The  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  truly  propitiatory, 
really  atones  for  sin, — and  then,  it  of  necessity  derogates 
from  the  all-sufficiency  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross, — 

Qr, — It  is  not  truly  propitiatory,  is  but  a  means  of 
grace,  a  channel  through  which  we  receive  more  plenti- 
fully the  fruits  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross ; — and  then,  it 
is,  it  can  be  of  no  avail  in  the  case  of  the  dead. 

§  86.   The  Mass  an  unbloody  Sacrifice. 

Nampon  describes  the  actual  oflfering  of  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Mass — in  its  most  important  parts — as  follows  :  "  The 
priest,  having  united  his  intention  with  that  of  the  most 
gracious  Father  who  has  given  us  his  Son,  of  the  Catholic 
Church  and  its  visible  head  on  earth,  the  Vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ,  of  the  Bishop  who  presides  over  the  diocese,  of 
those  for  whom  the  sacrifice  is  offered,  and  of  all  the  per- 
sons present ;  having  put  himself  in  communion  with  the 
glorious  Mary  ever  Virgin,  with  the  Apostles  and  princi- 
pal martyrs,  having  called  to  mind  the  ends  of  the  sacri- 
fice, and  prayed  Almighty  God  to  effect  the  change  of  the 
gifts  ...  he  takes  the  unleavened  bread  and  afterwards 
the  chalice  into  his  hands,  raises  his  eyes  to  heaven,  blessas 
and  consecrates  them,  repeating  what  was  said  by  the  In- 
carnate Word  :  '  This  is  my  body !  This  is  my  blood ! '  At 
the  same  time  he  adores,  and  presents  to  the  adoration  of 
the  people  the  present  Emmanuel.  He  then  offers  this 
pure,  holy,  spotle.ss  victim,  this  sacred  bread  of  life  im- 


The  Mass  an  unbloody  Sacrifice.  233 

mortal,  tliis  cup  of  everlasting  salvation,  to  the  God  who 
accepted  the  sacrifices  of  Abel,  Abraham  and  Melchizedok, 
entreating  him  that  this  adorable  victim  may  be  taken  by 
the  hand  of  his  angel  to  his  altar  on  high,  into  the  pres- 
ence of  his  divine  majesty  for  the  salvation,  the  consolation 
and  the  triumph  of  the  Church,  militant,  suffering,  and 
already  crowned  in  heaven  :  '  By  Him,'  he  says,  raising 
toward  the  Most  High,  the  Lamb  without  blemish,  '  with 
Him,  and  in  Him,  is  to  Thee,  God  the  Father  Almighty, 
in  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  all  honor  and  glory,  for- 
ever and  ever  ! '  "  {Nampons  "  Catholic  Doctrine," p.  441.) 
What  does  the  Council  of  Trent  mean  when  it  asserts 
that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  an  Unbloody  sacrifice  ? 

1.  It  cannot  mean  that  there  is  no  blood  present  in  the 
sacrifice.  As  Nampon  tells  us  the  offering  consists  of  the 
cup  as  well  as  the  bread ;  and  this  after  consecration ; 
when  the  real  presence  of  Emmanuel,  Christ  complete  has 
been  secured  : — and  this  to  such  an  extent  that  every  par- 
ticle of  the  bread  and  every  drop  of  the  wine  is  a  complete 
Christ, — body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity.  (See  §  58.) 
Every  part  of  the  offering  then,  according  to  their  express 
teaching,  is  full  of  blood.  And,  hence,  we  say,  the  Council 
of  Trent  cannot  mean — in  teaching  that  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Mass  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice,  that  there  is  no  blood 
present  there : — cannot  mean  that  the  word  unbloody  shall 
be  understood  literally. 

2.  In  the  Scriptures  the  words  blood  and  bloody  are  often 
used  in  2,  figurative  sense,  derived  from  the  Old  Testament 
rite  of  sacrifice.  In  Lev.  xvii.  11,  we  read — "  The  life  of  the 
flesh  is  in  the  blood ;  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the 
altar,  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls :  for  it  is  the 
blood  that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul."  A  bloody 
sacrifice  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  was  one  in 
which  a  hfe  was  taken, — one  in  which  death  was  endured 
by  the  sacrificial  victim  in  the  place  of  the  offerer^ — one  in 
which  atonement  was  made  by  vicarious  sufiering. 

Komanists  and  Protestants  agree  in  speaking  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  as  a  bloody  sacrifice.  In  that  sacrifice, 
as  had  been  prefigured  in  all  the  bloody  sacrifices  of  the 
Old  Testament,  there  was  a  life  given  up  to  God, — there 


234  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

was  the  death  of  Jesus  instead  of  the  deserved  death  of 
the  sinner, — there  was  vicarious  suffering.  So  the  Prophet 
Isaiah  presents  the  matter — "  Surely  he  hath  borne  our 
griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows;  yet  we  did  esteem  him 
stricken,  smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted.  But  he  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our 
iniquities ;  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him  ; 
and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have 
gone  astray ;  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way  ; 
and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all." 
(Isai.  liii.  4-6.)  Suffering,  vicarious  suffering  appears  in 
every  line  of  this  prophecy.  And  just  as  clearly  does  this 
same  truth  stand  out  upon  the  Gospel  record  of  his  death. 
In  Gethsemane,  he  is  "  in  an  agony,  .  .  .  and  his  sweat 
was  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood  falling  down  to  the 
ground,"  (Luke  xxii.  44.)  In  the  hall  of  Pilate  he  was 
''mocked,  and  spit  upon,  and  smitten,  and  crowned  with 
thorns,"  (Matt.  xxvi.  29,  30),  and  scourged  (Jno.  xix.  1,) 
— and  who  shall  ever  fathom  the  depth  of  suffering  im- 
plied in  his  bitter  cry  upon  the  cross — "My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  (Matt,  xxvii.  46.)  This 
hloodij  sacrifice,  was  characterized  by  suffering,  vicarious 
suffering,  above  all  others. 

In  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  expression,  a  bloody  sac- 
rifice is  one  in  which  life  is  taken,  and  vicarious  suffering 
endured ; — and  an  imhloody  sacrifice  must  be  one  where 
no  life  is  taken,  no  suffering  endured ;  and  it  is  in  this 
Scriptural  sense,  if  we  mistake  not,  the  Council  of  Trent 
styles  the  Mass  an  "  unbloody  sacrificed  So  Bishop  Hay 
understands  the  expression.  "  They," — i.  e.,  the  Sacrifice  of 
the  Cross  and  that  of  the  Mass — "  are  both  one  and  the  same 
sacrifice;  because  the  victim  is  the  same,  to  wit,  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  the  High  Priest,  or  principal  offerer,  is  the 
same  in  both,  to  wit,  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  he,  that  offered 
himself  upon  the  cross  ;  it  is  he  that  offers  himself  upon 
the  altar.  The  only  difference  is  in  the  maymer  of  offer- 
ing ;  because  on  the  cross  he  offered  himself  in  a  bloody 
manner,  and  actually  died ;  but  in  the  mass  he  offers  him- 
self in  an  unbloody  manner,  and  only  dies  mystically,  that 
is,  his  death  is  here  represented  by  the  separate  consecra- 


The  Mass  an  imhloody  Saerifice.  235 

tion  of  the  bread  and  wine,  which  denotes  the  separation, 
or  shedding  of  his  sacred  blood  from  his  body."  (7'At'  Sin- 
cere Christian,  p.  241.) 

Why  does  the  Church  of  Eome,  so  carefully  teach  the 
unbloody  character  of  the  saciilice  of  the  mass  ?  Let  the 
reader  call  to  mind  the  facts — (1)  That  the  victim  they 
profess  to  offer  in  the  Mass  is  "Christ  Complete,"  the  same 
in  body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity,  that  was  sacrificed 
upon  the  cross  more  than  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  and 
— (2)  That  in  setting  forth  the  propitiatory  character 
of  this  sacrifice  they  are  accustomed  to  use  such  language 
as  that  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent — "  The 
sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  one  and  the  same  sacrifice  with  that 
of  the  cross," — "the  oblation  of  the  cross  is  daily  reneioed 
in  the  eucharistic  sacrifice,"  and  that  of  Bishop  Vernot's 
Catechism,  "  The  mass  is  the  unbloody  sacrifice  ...  re- 
presenting and  ^ontiyiuing  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  the 
cross."  (P.  16.)  Now,  if  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  really 
the  same  with  that  of  the  cross, — if  there  is  life  taken, 
death  inflicted,  vicarious  suffering  endured,  then, — (1)  as 
the  place  of  the  "  victim  and  that  of  the  high-priest  or 
principal  offerer  "  are  both  occupied  by  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
mass  as  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  the  officiating  priest 
must  be  acting  over  again  the  part  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  who  "  with  wicked  hands  crucified  and  slew  "  (Acts 
ii.  23,)  the  Lord  : — and  (2)  in  every  repetition  of  the  mass 
there  is  a  "  renewal,"  a  "  continuation  "  of  the  bitter  agony, 
the  shameful-humiliation  of  Calvary.  To  escape  this  heavy 
charge  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches  that  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass  is  an  unbloody  one  ;  that  Christ  does  not  "actually 
die, — his  death  is  onystical," and  the  shedding  of  his  blood 
is  only  "  represented  by  the  separate  consecration  of  the 
bread  and  wine." 

Taking  the  declaration  of  the  Council  of  Trent  that  "  in 
the  mass,  that  same  Christ  is  contained  and  immolated  in 
an  unbloody  manner,  who  once  offered  himself  in  a  bloody 
manner  on  the  altar  of  the  cross,"  and  understanding  the 
terms  unbloody  and  bloody  in  the  sense  defined  above,  we 
remark — 

1.  If  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  unbloody,  it  is  not  pro- 


236  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup'per. 

pitiatory.  Of  the  typical  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament, 
God  says — "  I  have  given  it  (the  blood)  to  you  upon  the 
altar,  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls ;  for  it  is  the 
blood  that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul."  (Lev.  xvii. 
11.)  And  Paul,  when  discussing  this  very  point,  writes — 
"  Almost  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged  with  blood;  and 
without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission."  (Pleb.  ix.  22.) 
— Or,  turning  from  the  figure  to  the  reality: — Paul  pro- 
ceeds to  say,  "  Nor  yet  that  he  (Christ)  should  ofier  him- 
self often,  ...  for  then  must  he  often  have  suffered  since 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  (Heb.  ix.  25,  26.)  In  Geth- 
semane,  our  Lord  "  prayed  saying,  0  my  Father,  if  it  be 
possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me ;  nevertheless,  not  as  I 
will,  but  as  thou  wilt.  ...  0  my  Father,  if  this  cup  may 
not  pass  away  from  me,  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will  be 
done."  (Matt.  xxvi.  39,  42.)  It  was  not  ''  possible  "  that 
the  bitter  cup  of  suffering  should  pass  aTvay  from  him,  and 
yet  man's  salvation  be  secured ;  and  so,  he  drank  it,  to  the 
bitter  dregs.  According  to  these  Scriptures,  and  we  might 
multiply  quotations  of  similar  import  from  all  parts  of  the 
Word  of  God,  vicarious  suffering  is  essential  to  propitia- 
tion ;  "  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement," — "  without 
shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission."  If  then  the  mass  is  an 
unbloody  sacrifice,  it  is  not  propitiatory,  it  can  make  no 
atonement  for  sin. 

2.  If  the  Mass  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice,  it  is  a  gross  mis- 
use of  language  to  speak  of  it  as  "  one  and  the  same  sacri- 
fice with  that  of  the  cross."  They  are  no  more  one  and 
the  same,  than  the  sham-fight,  enacted  on  some  pleasant 
summer-day,  for  the  amusement  of  the  spectators,  is  one 
and  the  same  with  the  fierce  death-struggle  of  the  battle- 
field where  a  nation's  independence  is  won  or  lost : — they 
are  no  more  one  and  the  same  than  the  gilded  paper  coin 
with  which  the  Chinese  worshipper  seeks  to  cheat  his  God 
in  his  joss-house,  is  one  and  the  same  with  the  gold  coin 
which  is  current  in  the  commerce  of  the  world. 

§  87.   The  propitiatory  loorth  of  the  Mass  practically  illus- 
trated. 

"  Nothing  then  is  wanting  in  the  holy  mass,  to  constitute 


The  Propitiatory  Worth  of  the  Mass  Illustrated.  237 

it  the  true  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  the  new  law,  a 
sacrifice  which  as  much  surpasses,  in  dignity  and  efficacy, 
the  sacrifices  of  the  old  law,  as  the  chief  priest  and  victim 
of  it,  the  incarnate  Deity,  surpasses,  in  these  respects,  the 
sons  of  Aaron,  and  the  animals  which  they  sacrificed." 
{Jlibier's  End  of  Controverst/,  p.  244.) 

"  If  all  human  beings  in  the  world,  and  all  living 
creatures,  and  all  inanimate  objects  were  collected  together 
and  burned  as  a  holocaust  to  the  Lord,  they  would  not 
confer  as  much  praise  on  the  Almighty  as  a  single  eucha- 
ristic  sacrifice;  because  these  earthly  creatiu'es,  how  numer- 
ous and'  excellent  soever,  are  finite  and  imperfect ;  while 
the  otfering  made  in  the  Mass  is  of  infinite  value,  for  it  is 
our  Lord  Jesus,  the  acceptable  Lamb  without  blemish,  the 
beloved  Son  in  whom  the  Father  is  well  pleased,  and  who 
'  is  always  heard  on  account  of  his  reverence.'  "  {Gihhom 
Faith  of  our  Fathers,  p.  362.) 

When  one  reads  such  a  representation  as  that  given  by 
Nampon  (see  §86)  that  in  the  oiiering  of  the  Mass,  God 
"  the  Father,  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Bishop  of  the 
diocese,  and  those  for  whom  the  sacrifice  is  offered, "  all 
participate  in  the  oflering  through  the  priest's  "  uniting  his 
intention "  with  theirs ;  and  "  the  glorious  Mary,  ever 
Virgin,  with  the  Apostles  and  principal  mart^TS,"  by  being 
in  communion  with  the  priest ;  and  then  reads  such  state- 
ments respecting  "  the  dignity  and  efficacy "  of  the  sacri- 
fice, as  those  of  Dr.  Milner  and  Archbishop  Gibbons, 
quoted  above,  the  natural  conclusion  would  be  that  a 
mass,  "  a  sacrifice  of  the  altar  "  was  almost  equal  to  "  the 
sacrifice  of  the  cross." 

Turn  we  now  to  a  diSerent  view  of  the  case,  a  practical 
one,  such  as  occurs  in  the  ordinary  course  of  human  life. 
Some  time  ago,  I  read  an  account  of  the  de^-^th  of  a  gentle- 
man, in  the  south  of  Ireland,  who  left  £800  to  his  parish 
priest,  to  pay  for  masses  for  the  repose  of  his  soul.  This 
money  was  duly  paid  over  by  his  executor  to  the  priest. 
Such  bequests  as  this  are  common  in  Catholic  countries, 
as  we  all  know.  The  ordinary  cost  of  a  mass,  in  the  south 
of  Ireland  is,  I  have  been  told,  a  crown.  £8(X)  then 
would  pay  for  3200  masses.     The  priest,  I  presume,  was 


233  Tlce  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

an  honest  man  ; — and  if  so,  lie  would  not  impose  upon  a 
dead  man,  who  had  no  chance  of  redress,  by  taking  more 
for  a  mass  from  him,  than  he  was  accustomed  to  receive 
from  the  living, — and  he  would  not  take  money  for  masses 
which  he  did  not  believe  were  needed.  The  man  who  had 
died  was  a  good  Catholic,  as  proved  by  his  bequest. 
Through  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  received  while 
living,  at  death,  he  sunk  no  lower  than  purgatory;  and 
under  no  heavier  guilt  than  that  of  venial  sins ; — for  mor- 
tal sin  would  have  sunk  him  lower  than  purgatory.  And 
yet  it  took  3200  masses,  and  I  know  not  how  much  more  in 
the  way  of  days,  months,  years  of  purgatorial  suffering,  to  ex- 
piate his  venial  sins,  and  get  him  safe  through  to  heaven. 

This  must  be  so,  or  these  masses  were  a  sham,  and  a 
delusion.  In  view  of  such  a  fact  as  this,  we  ask,  what  is 
the  real  propitiatory  worth  of  a  mass  ? — And  the  answer, 
expressed  with  mathematical  accuracy,  as  given  us  by  the 
Church  of  Eome,  in  these  her  acts,  is — One  thirty-two 
hundredth  part  of  the  guilt  of  the  venial  sins  of  a  good 
Catholic  gentleman. 

In  what  perfect  contrast  with  this,  the  Scriptural  esti- 
mate of  the  propitiatory  worth  of  the  one  sacrifice  of  the 
cross. — "  By  one  offering,  he  hath  perfected  forever  them 
that  are  sanctified."  (Heb.  x.  14.)  "The  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ,  his  Son,  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  (1  John  i.  7.) 

§  88.  Masses  in  honor  of  the  Saints. 

"  And  although  the  Church  has  been  accustomed  at 
"  times  to  celebrate  certain  masses  in  honor  and  memory 
"  of  the  saints ;  not,  therefore,  however,  does  she  teach 
"  that  sacrifice  is  offered  unto  them,  but  unto  God  alone, 
"  who  crowned  them  ;  whence  neither  is  the  priest  wont  to 
"  say,  '  I  offer  sacrifice  to  thee,  Peter  or  Paul ; '  but,  giving 
"  thanks  to  God  for  their  victories,  he  implores  their  patron- 
"  age,  that  they  may  vouchsafe  to  intercede  for  us  in  hea- 
"  ven,  whose  memory  we  celebrate  upon  earth.  "    (Ch.  iii.) 

"  Canon  v.  If  any  one  saith,  that  it  is  an  imposture  to 
"  celebrate  masses  in  honor  of  the  saints,  and  for  obtaining 
"  their  intercession  with  God,  as  the  Church  intends ;  let 
"  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent,  xxii.  Session.) 


Masses  in  Honor  of  the  Saints.  239 

"  The  solemn  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is,  it  is  true,  sorae- 
"  times  offered  to  honor  the  memory  of  the  saints  ;  but  it  is 
"  never  offered  to  them,  but  to  him  alone  who  has  crowned 
"  them  with  unfading  glory.  Never  does  the  officiating 
"  minister  say — '  I  offer  sacrifice  to  thee,  Peter,  or  to  thee, 
"  Paul ;  '  but  whilst,  he  offers  sacrifice  to  God  alone,  he 
"  renders  him  thanks  for  the  signal  victories  won  by  the 
"  martyrs,  and  implores  their  patronage,  'that  they  whose 
"  memory  we  celebrate  on  earth,  may  vouchsafe  to  inter- 
"  cede  for  us  in  heaven.'"  [Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  p.  17-^.) 

In  the  above  extracts  the  reader  has  all  that  the  Council 
of  Trent,  or  the  authors  of  its  Catechism  give  us,  on  this 
strangest  portion  of  the  strange  doctrine  of  the  Mass.  Dr. 
Milner,  and  Archbishop  Gibbons,  say  not  a  word  on  the 
subject ; — and  Nampon,  though  his  work  bears  the  title  of 
"  Catholic  Doctrine,  as  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent  ex- 
pounded," gives  simply  the  Council's  explanation  and 
Canon,  as  given  above  (pp.  468,  471),  w-ithout  a  word  of 
comment. 

A  mass  celebrated  "  in  honor  of  St.  Peter,"  and  "  to 
obtain  his  intercession  with  God !  ''     What  does  it  mean  ? 

"  The  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  one  and  the  same  sacrifice 
with  that  of  the  cross, — the  victim  is  the  same, — the  man- 
ner alone  of  offering  being  different." — It  is  a  repetition 
then  of  the  cruel  scene  of  Calvary.  Granting,  that  the 
sacrifice  is  an  unbloody  one,  that  Christ's  death  therein  is 
not  "actual"  but  only  "mystical,"  that  his  crucifixion  is 
only  in  pantomime,  yet  is  it  true,  that  so  far  as  there  is 
any  reality  in  it,  it  is  a  renewed  crucifixion  of  the  Lord. 
And  this  is  done  "in  honor  of  St.  Peter,"  and  "  to  obtain 
his  intercession  v/ith  God  "  for  us. 

"When  I  read  of  the  old  gladiator — "  butchered,  to  make 
a  Roman  holiday  " — in  honor  of  a  Nero  or  Caligula,  and 
to  secure  favor  with  them,  I  am  not  greatly  surprised, 
since  I  know  that  their  habitual,  savage  cruelty  has  sunk 
them  below  the  level  of  even  ordinary  humanity.  But 
w^ien  you  ask  me  to  believe  something  still  more  revolting 
respecting  St.  Peter,  I  say — No, — it  is  a  shameful  slander 
of  a  good  man,  dead. 


240  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 


CHAPTER  XL 

CONSUBSTANTIATION. 

g89.  Consubstantiation  defined.    §90.  Wherein  Consubstantiation  and  Transub. 
■tantiation  differ.    §91.  Objections  to  the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation. 

§89.  Consubstantiation  Defined. 

"  The  Formula  of  Concord,"  the  last  of  the  Lutheran 
Confessions,  completed  in  1577,  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of 
Consubstantiation  in  the  following  propositions,  viz. : 

AFFIRMATIVE. 

"  I.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  in  the  Lord's 
"  Supper  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  and  sub- 
"stantially  present,  and  that  they  are  truly  distributed 
"  and  taken  together  with  the  bread  and  wine. 

"  11.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  the  words  of  the 
"  Testament  of  Christ  are  not  to  be  otherwise  received  than 
"as  the  words  themselves  literally  sound,  so  that  the  bread 
"  does  not  signify  the  absent  body  of  Christ  and  the  wine 
"  the  absent  blood  of  Christ,  but  on  account  of  the  sacra- 
"  mental  union  the  bread  and  wine  are  truly  the  body  and 
"  blood  of  Christ. 

"  in.  Moreover,  as  concerns  the  consecration,  we  be- 
"  lieve,  teach,  and  confess  that  no  human  work,  nor  any 
"  utterance  of  the  minister  of  the  Church,  is  the  cause  of 
"  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  that 
"  this  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  omnipotent  power  of  our 
"  Lord  Jesus  Christ  alone. 

"  VL  "We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  the  body 
"  and  blood  of  Christ  are  taken  with  the  bread  and  wine, 
"  not  only  spiritually  through  faith,  but  also  by  the  mouth, 
"  nevertheless,  not  capernaitically,  but  after  a  spiritual 
"and  heavenly  manner,  by  reason  of  the  sacramental 
"  union.     For  to  this  the  words  of  Christ  clearly  bear  wit- 


Coiisubstantiation.  241 

"  ness,  in  which  he  enjoins  us  to  take,  to  eat,  to  drink  ;  and 
"  that  this  was  done  by  the  Apostles  the  Scriptures  make 
"  mention,  saying,  (Mark  xiv.  23.)  'And  they  all  drank 
"  of  it.'  And  Paul  says,  *  the  bread  which  we  break  is 
"  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  '  that  is,  he  that 
"  eats  this  bread  eats  the  body  of  Christ.  To  the  same 
"  with  great  consent  do  the  chief  of  the  ancient  doctors  of 
"  the  Church,  Chrysostom,  Cyprian,  Leo  the  First,  Gregory, 
"Ambrose,  Augustine,  bear  witness." 

"  VII.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  not  only  true 
"  believers  in  Christ,  and  such  as  worthily  approach  the 
"  Supper  of  the  Lord,  but  also  the  unworthy  and  unbeliev- 
"  ing  receive  the  true  body  and  blood  of  "Christ ;  in  such 
"  wise,  nevertheless,  that  they  derive  thence  neither  con- 
"  solation  nor  life,  but  rather  so  as  that  receiving 
"  turns  to  their  judgment  and  condemnation,  unless  they 
"  be  converted  and  repent."  (1  Cor.  xi.  27-29.) 

"  IX.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  no  true  be- 
"  liever,  so  long  as  he  retains  a  living  faith,  receives  the 
"  Supper  of  the  Lord  unto  condemnation,  however  much 
"  weakness  he  may  labor  under.  For  the  Lord's  Sup- 
"  per  has  been  chiefly  instituted  for  the  sake  of  the  weak 
"  in  faith,  who  nevertheless  are  penitent,  that  from  it  they 
"  may  derive  true  consolation  and  a  strengthening  of  their 
"  weak  faith."     (Matt.  ix.  12 ;  xi.  5,  28.) 

"X.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  the  whole 
"  worthiness  of  the  guests  at  this  heavenly  Supper  con- 
"  sists  alone  in  the  most  holy  obedience  and  most  perfect 
"  merit  of  Christ.  And  this  we  apply  to  ourselves  by  true 
"  faith,  and  are  rendered  certain  of  the  application  of  this 
"  merit,  and  are  confirmed  in  our  minds  by  the  sacrament. 
"  But  in  no  way  does  that  worthiness  depend  upon  our 
"  virtues,  or  upon  our  inward  or  outward  preparations." 

"negative." 

"We  reject  and  condemn,  by  unanimous  consent,  all  the 
"  erroneous  articles  which  we  will  now  recount,  as  being 
"  opposed  to  the  above-stated  godly  doctrine  to  the  sim- 
"  plicity  of  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  to  the  sound  confes- 
"  sion  concerning  the  Supper  of  the  Lord. 


2dL2  The  Doctriyie  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  I.  The  papistical  transubstantiation,  when,  to  wit : 
"  in  the  Papal  Church  it  is  taught  that  the  bread  and  wine 
"  in  the  holy  Supper  lose  their  substance  and  natural  es- 
"  sence,  and  are  thus  annihilated,  and  those  elements  so 
"  transmuted  into  the  body  of  Christ,  that,  excepting  the 
"  outward  species,  nothing  remains  of  them. 

"  II.  The  papistical  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  which  is  offered 
"for  the  sins  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 

"  III.  The  sacrilege  whereby  one  part  of  the  sacrament 
"only  is  given  to  the  laity,  the  cup  being  forbidden  them, 
"  against  the  express  words  of  the  Testament  of  Christ, 
"  and  they  are  thus  despoiled  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 

"  XL  That  Christ's  body  is  so  contained  in  heaven  that 
"  it  can  in  no  mode  whatever  be  likewise  at  one  and  the 
"  same  time  in  many  places,  or  in  all  the  places  where  the 
"  Lord's  Supper  is  celebrated. 

"  XVII.  That  the  worthiness  of  the  guest  at  this 
"  heavenly  Supper  does  not  depend  alone  upon  true  faith 
"  in  Christ,  but  upon  the  outward  preparation  of  men. 

"  XIX.  That  the  external  visible  elements  of  bread  and 
"  wine  in  the  sacrament  are  to  be  adored. 

"  XXI.  We  also  utterly  reject  and  condemn  the  Caper- 
"  naitic  manducation  of  the  body  of  Christ,  which,  after  so 
"  many  protestations  on  our  part,  the  Sacramentarians 
"  maliciously  feign  against  us,  contrary  to  the  testimony  of 
"  their  own  conscience,  in  order  that  they  may  bring  our 
"  doctrine  into  discredit  with  their  hearers,  as  if,  forsooth, 
"  we  taught  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  torn  by  the  teeth 
"  and  digested  in  the  human  body  like  any  other  food, 
"  But  we  believe  and  assert,  according  to  the  plain  words 
"  of  the  Testament  of  Clirist,  a  true  but  supernatural  man- 
"  ducation  of  the  body  of  Christ,  even  as  also  we  teach  that 
"  the  blood  of  Christ  is  truly,  but  nevertheless  supernatu- 
"  rally,  drunk.  But  these  things  no  one  is  able  with  hu- 
"  man  senses  or  reason  to  comprehend ;  wherefore  in  this 
"  matter,  as  also  in  other  articles  of  the  faith,  it  behooves 
"  that  our  understanding  be  brought  into  captivity  to  the 
"  obedience  of  Christ.  For  this  mystery  is  revealed  in  the 
"  word  of  G-od  alone,  and  is  comprehended  by  faith  alone." 
(Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  Hi.  pp.  137-146.) 


Coiisubstantiatio)i  and  Tmnsubstantiation.       243 

From  tlio  above  quotations,  tlio  reader  will  see  : — 

1st.  That  the  Lutheran  Standards  teach  a  hteral  presence 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
distinctly  and  emphatically  as  the  "  Decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  "  do.  As  the  "  Saxon  Visitation  Articles  (A.  D. 
1592,)  "  express  it ;  In  the  Lord's  Supper  "  the  true  and 
"  natural  body  of  Christ  which  hung  on  the  cross,  and  the 
"true  and  natural  blood,  which  flowed  from  the  side  of 
"  Christ,  are  exhibited  and  received."  {Schaffs  Creeds  of 
Christendom,  Vol.  iii.  p.  182.) 

2d.  That  the  Lutheran  Standards  teach,  as  the  Roman 
do,  that  this  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  eaten  as  truly 
and  really  by  the  unworthy  as  by  the  worthy  communi- 
cants. 

3d.  That  the  Lutheran  Standards  teach,  as  the  Roman 
do,  that  there  is  a  mystery  about  this  presence  which  can 
be  "  comprehended  by  faith  alone,"  and  which,  therefore, 
reason  must  not  attempt  too  curiously  to  pry  into. 

But  here  the  similarity  between  Trans ubstantiation  and 
Consubstantiation  ends. 


§  90.    Wherein  Consubstantiation  and  Transuhstantiation 
differ. 

I.  The  Lutheran  Standards  do  not  teach  as  the  Roman 
do,  the  presence  of  the  soul  and  divinity  of  Christ  in  the 
eucharist ; — do  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Pres- 
ence,— so  that  "the  same  God  is  therein,  of  whom  the 
"  Eternal  Father,  when  introducing  him  into  the  world 
"  said, — and  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  And 
hence,  they  utterly  reject — 

(1)  "  The  adoration  of  the  Host," — the  worshipping  of 
the  elements  in  the  eucharist  "  with  the  worship  which  is 
due  to  God  alone." 

(2)  "  The  sacrifice  of  the  mass ;  " — the  continual  repeti- 
tion, through  the  agency  of  priests,  ordained  for  this  very 
purpose,  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ,  once  ofier- 
ed  upon  Calvary. 

II.  Rejecting  the  Romish  doctrine  of  transuhstantiation, 
i.  e.,  that  "conversion  is  made  of  the  whole  substance  of 


244        '       The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  SajDper. 

the  bread  into  the  body  of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of 
the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  substance 
of  his  blood,"  Luther  taught,  and  Lutherans  hold,  "  that 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  in,  or  along 
with,  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine ;  in  a  manner  anal- 
ogous to  that  in  which  the  divinity  of  Christ  co-existed  in 
the  same  person  with  his  human  nature;  hence,  by  an 
analogy  with  the  word  incarnation,  he  devised  for  the 
eucharistic  union  the  term  impanation.  (Lat.  in  and  panis, 
bread.)  "  {Chambers   Encyclopedia,  Art.  Impanation.) 

IIL  The  Church  of  Kome  teaches,  that  in  the  mass,  the 
Priests —  "  consecrate  the  holy  mysteries  not  in  their  own 
"but  in  the  person  of  Christ.  This  the  words  of  consecra- 
"  tion  declare.  The  Priest  does  not  say,  '  This  is  the  body 
"  of  Christ,'  but  '  This  is  my  body ;  '  and  thus  invested 
*'  with  the  character  of  Christ,  he  changes  the  substance 
*'  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  substance  of  his  real  body  and 
"blood."  {Cat.  Council  of  Trent,  p.  175.)  The  Lutheran 
Church  teaches  that — "  not  any  utterance  of  the  minister 
"  of  the  Church,  is  the  cause  of  the  presence  of  the  body 
"  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  that  this  is  to  be  attributed  to 
"  the  omnipotent  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  alone." 

IV.  The  Church  of  P\,ome  teaches  that — "  after  the  con- 
secration, there  is  not  here  the  body  and  there  the  blood ; 
but  under  the  sacramental  sign,  however  reduced  be  its 
dimensions,  and  whatever  be  its  form,  there  exists  the 
humanity  of  the  Saviour,  'entire,  indivisible,  immortal, 
such  as  it  is  in  heaven,  only  veiling  its  glory  from  our 
senses.  Accordingly,  a  drop  which  falls  from  the  chalice, 
a  crumb  which  is  separated  from  the  consecrated  host,  are 
the  one  as  well  as  the  other,  the  thrice  holy  humanity 
which  was  sacrificed  for  us  on  the  cross."  {Nampon  s  Cath. 
Doctrine,  p.  400.)  And  on  this  ground  denies  the  cup  to 
the  laity,  declaring  that  "  communion  under  either  species 
is  sufficient  for  them  unto  salvation."  The  Lutheran 
Church  protests  against  this  denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity 
as  a  "  sacrilege,"  and  as  "  against  the  express  words  of  the 
Testament  of  Christ." 

V.  The  Church  of  Kome  teaches,  respecting  the  sacra- 
ments in  general,  and,  of  course,  respecting  this  one  in 


Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Consuhstantiation.   245 

particular,  that  "  tliey  confer  grace  {ex  opere  operato) 
through  the  act  performed."  Whilst  the  Lutheran  Church 
teaches  that — "the  whole  worthiness  of  the  guests  at  this 
heavenly  Supper  consists  alone  in  the  most  holy  obedience 
and  most  perfect  merit  of  Christ.  And  this  we  apply  to 
ourselves. by  true  faith,  and  are  rendered  certain  of  the 
application  of  this  merit,  and  are  confirmed  in  our  minds 
by  the  sacrament."  Hence  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
Supper  is  consistent  with  the  belief  in  "justification  by 
grace  through  faith  alone,"  which  the  Romish  doctrine  is 
not. 

§  91.   Objections  to  the  doctfine  of  Consubstantiation. 

I.  The  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation,  or  impanation  if 
the  Lutheran  prefers  that  term,  is  altogether  without 
scriptural  authority.  The  doctrine  of  the  presence  of  the 
true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in,  with,  or  under  the  bread 
and  wine,  is  based  entirely  upon  the  assumption  that  "  the 
words  of  the  Testament  of  Christ  are  not  to  be  otherwise 
received  than  as  the  words  themselves  literally  sound," 
and  this  assumption,  correct  principles  of  interpretation 
require  us  to  reject.  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  point 
the  reader  is  referred  to  chap.  iii. 

II.  This  doctrine  seems  necessarily  to  involve  the  idea 
of  the  presence  of  Christ's  body,  and  so,  as  his  divinity  is 
everywhere  present,  of  his  whole  person,  here  on  earth, 
wherever  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  is  administered  : — 
and  this  is  irreconcilable  with  such  passages  of  Scripture  as 
the  following,  viz. — Acts  i.  11.  "  Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why 
stand  ye  gazing  up  into  heaven  ?  this  same  Jesus  which  is 
taken  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  mati- 
ner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven."  Acts  iii.  21. 
Jesus  Christ  "  whom  the  heavens  must  receive  until  the 
time  of  restitution  of  all  things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by 
the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  since  the  world  began." 
Luke  xxiv.  51.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  while  he  blessed 
them,  he  was  parted  from  them,  and  carried  up  into  heav- 
en." Jno.  xvi.  7,  28.  "  Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth ; 
it  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not 


246  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you ;  but  if  I  de- 
part, I  will  send  him  unto  you  ...  I  came  forth  from  the 
Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world:  again,  I  leave  the 
world  and  go  to  the  Father."  Jno.  xvii.  11,  "And  now,  I  am 
no  more  in  the  world,  but  these  are  in  the  world,  and  I 
come  to  thee." 

III.  It  is  inconceivable  that  his  Apostles  could  have  under- 
stood our  Lord's  words — "  this  is  my  body," — "this  is  my 
blood,"  in  the  sense  which  this  doctrine  requires  us  to  put 
upon  them,  at  the  time  he  uttered  them  at  the  institution 
of  this  sacrament.  For  a  discussion  of  this  point  the 
reader  is  referred  to  §  51. 


PART  III. 


THE 

FIVE  ADDITIONAL   SACRAMENTS 

OF 
THE  CHURCH  OF   ROME. 


"  Canon  I.  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Law 
"  were  not  all  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord ;  or  that  they  are 
"  more,  or  less,  than  seven,  to  wit:  Baptism,  Confirmation,  the  Eucharist, 
"  Penance,  Extreme  Unction,  Order,  and  Matrimony,  or  even  that  any 
"  one  of  these  seven  is  not  truly  and  properly  a  sacrament :  let  him  be 
"  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent,  Session  VII.) 

"  How  many  are  the  sacraments? 

"Seven.  1.  Baptism;  2.  Unction  with  Chrism;  3.  Communion;  4. 
Penitence;  5.  Orders;  6.  Matrimony;  7.  Unction  with  Oil."  {The 
Larger  Catechism  of  the  Orthodox,  Catholic,  Eastern  Church.) 


11* 


Conjiniiation.  251 


CHAPTER   I. 


CONFIRMATION. 


J 92.  Confirmation  defined.     §93.    Acts  viii.  14-19.    xix.  1-7.    ?94.  Heb.  vl.   1,2. 
g96.  Co!ifirmation  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

§  92.    Confirmation  Defined. 

"  Canon  I,  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  confirmation  of 
*'  those  who  have  been  baptized  is  an  idle  ceremony,  and 
"  not  rather  a  true  and  proper  sacrament ;  or  that  of  old 
"  it  was  nothing  more  than  a  kind  of  catechism,  whereby 
"  they  who  were  near  adolescence  gave  an  account  of  their 
"  faith  in  the  face  of  the  Church,  let  him  be  anathema." 

"Canon  II.  If  any  one  saith,  that  they  who  ascribe  any 
"  virtue  to  the  sacred  chrism  of  confirmation,  offer  an 
"  outrage  to  the  Holy  Ghost:  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  III.  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  ordinary  minis- 
"  ter  of  holy  confirmation  is  not  the  bishop  alone,  but  any 
"  simple  priest  soever  :  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of 
Trent,  Session  VII.) 

"  The  Pastor  .  .  .  will,  accordingly,  inform  the  faithful, 
"  that  not  only  was  this  sacrament  instituted  by  our  Lord 
"  Jesus  Christ,  but  as  St.  Fabian,  Bishop  of  Rome  testi- 
"  fies,  the  chrism  and  the  words  used  in  its  administration 
"  were  also  appointed  by  him :  a  fact  of  easy  proof  to 
"  those  who  beheve  confirmation  to  be  a  sacrament,  for 
"  all  the  sacred  mysteries  are  beyond  the  power  of  man, 
"  and  could  have  been  instituted  by  God  alone." 

"  The  form  of  Confirmation  consists  of  these  words  :  '  / 
"  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  I  confirm 
"  thee  with  the  chrism  of  salvation,  in  the  name  of  the 
"  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  .  .  . 


252  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  The  form  of  the  sacrament  should  embrace  whatever  is 
"  necessary  to  explain  its  nature  and  substance ;  with  re- 
*'  gard  to  the  nature  and  substance  of  Confirmation,  there 
"  are  three  things  that  demand  .particular  attention,  the 
"  divine  power,  which,  as  a  primary  cause,  operates  in  the 
"  sacrament ;  the  spiritual  strength  which  it  imparts  to 
"  the  faithful  unto  salvation ;  and  lastly,  the  sign  im- 
"  pressed  on  him  who  is  to  engage  in  the  warfare  of  Christ. 
"  The  words — '  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
"  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  with  which  the  form  closes,  suf- 
"  ficiently  declare  the  first ;  the  second  is  comprised  in  the 
"  words,  '  I  confirm  thee  with  the  chrism  of  salvation ;' 
" and  the  words,  'I  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,' 
"with  which  the  form  opens,  convey  the  third." 

"  It  is  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  confirmation  to 
"  perfect  the  grace  of  baptism :  those  who  are  initiated 
"  into  the  Christian  religion,  share,  as  it  were,  the  tender- 
"  ness  and  infirmity  of  new-born  infants ;  but  they  after- 
"  wards  gather  strength  from  the  sacrament  of  chrism,  to 
"  combat  the  assaults  of  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil, 
"  and  are  confirmed  in  faith  to  confess  and  glorify  the 
"  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  From  this  last-men- 
"  tioned  circumstance  it  arose,  no  doubt,  that  the  sacra- 
"  ment  was  distinguished  by  the  name  of  confirmation." 
{Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  139,  140,  141, 
143.) 

From  the  above-quoted  deliverances  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  and  the  Catechism  of  that  Council,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eome  respecting  confir- 
mation is : — (1)  That  it  is  a  true  and  proper  Sacrament, 
— (2)  That  it  was  "instituted"  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, — 
(3)  That  the  ceremonial  consists  in  signing  with  the  sign 
of  the  cross,  and  anointing  with  chrism,  the  "  form"  being 
— "  I  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  confirm 
thee  with  the  chrism  of  salvation,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"— (4)  Its 
special  effect  is  "to  perfect  the  grace  of  baptism," — (5) 
The  proper  minister  of  Confirmation  is  "the  bishop  alone." 

On  this  fourth  point,  mentioned  above.  Archbishop  Ken- 
rick  writes, — "  The    end  for  which   confirmation    is  ad- 


Acts  via  14-19.     xix.  1-7.  253 

ministered,  is  to  strengthen  us  in  the  belief  of  the  Chris- 
tian mysteries,  and  in  the  profession  of  our  faith.  We 
cannot  apprehend  with  certainty  supernatural  truth,  un- 
less we  be  enlightened  from  above.  We  cannot  acknow- 
ledge with  divine  faith  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  unless  the 
Holy  Ghost  exert  his  influence  on  our  mind,  to  dissipate 
its  darkness,  and  stay  its  vacillation :  '  No  man  can  say, 
the  Lord  Jesus,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,'  (1  Cor.  xii.  3.) 
To  profess  our  faith  is  a  strict  duty,  for  'with  the  heart,' 
says  the  Apostle,  'we  believe  unto  justice;  but  with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation.'  (Rom.  x.  10.) 
The  temptations  to  deny  it  are  numerous  and  powerful. 
It  is  scoffed  at  by  the  wise  and  prudent  of  the  world,  from 
whom  it  is  hidden  by  a  just  judgment  of  God;  and  few 
have  fortitude  to  endure  the  imputation  of  credulity,  sim- 
plicity, and  superstition It  is  only  the  Holy  Spirit 

who  can  give  us  intrepidity  and  heroic  resolution,  when 
faith  and  conscience  require  great  sacrifices.  The  '  Spirit 
of  our  Father '  spoke  in  the  martyrs,  and  gave  them  wis- 
dom which  their  adversaries  could  not  resist.  He  still 
communicates  his  grace,  and  gives  us  strength,  that  we 
may  not  shrink  from  our  good  and  glorious  confession.  .  . 

\Ve  are  warned  by  the  Apostle  not  to  prove  recreant 
to  our  engagements,  nor  faithless  to  the  sacramental  grace, 
which  is  directed  to  our  final  perseverance.  '  Grieve  not 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye  are  sealed  unto  the 
day  of  redemption.'  (Eph.  iv.  30j."  {Kenrick  on  Bap- 
tism, pp.  231,  232). 

The  Scripture  proofs  appealed  to  in  support  of  this  doc- 
trine of  confirmation  are, — (1)  the  passages  which  record 
the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
Apostles'  hands,  such  as  Acts  viii.  14-19  and  xix.  1-7,  and 
(2)  Heb.  vi.  2. 

§93.  Acts  viii.  14-19  ;  xix.  1-7. 

"  Now  when  the  Apostles  which  were  at  Jerusalem 
heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God,  they 
sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John;  who,  when  they  were 
come  down,  prayed  for  them,  that  they  might  receive  the 


254  Tlie  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Holy  Ghost:  (For  as  yet  lie  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them: 
only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.) 
Then  laid  they  their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  when  Simon  saw  that  through  laying 
on  of  the  Apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given,  he 
offered  them  money ;  saying,  Give  me  also  this  power,  that 
on  whomsoever  I  lay  hands,  he  may  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost."  (Acts  viii.  14-19.) 

"  And  it  came  to  pass,  that,  while  Apollos  was  at  Co- 
rinth, Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper  coasts,  came 
to  Ephesus ;  and  finding  certain  disciples,  he  said  unto 
them,  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ? 
And  they  said  unto  him,  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard 
whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto 
them,  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said, 
Unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  peo- 
ple, that  they  should  believe  on  him  which  should  come 
after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When  they  heard  this 
they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And 
when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost 
came  on  them  :  and  they  spake  with  tongues,  and  prophesied. 
And  all  the  men  were  about  twelve."  Acts  xix.  1-7. 

In  connection  with  these  passages  let  the  reader  con- 
sider two  others  in  which  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
recorded,  viz, : 

Acts  ii.  1-4.  "  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was 
fully  come,  they  {i.  e.,  the  hundred  and  twenty  mentioned 
in  i.  15)  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  sud- 
denly there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing 
mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were 
sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues 
like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance." 

Acts  X.  44-48.  "  While  Peter  yet  spake  these  words, 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word. 
And  they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed,  were  aston- 
ished, as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on  the 
Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


Acts  viii.  14-19.     xiv.  1-7.  255 

For  they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues,  and  magnify 
God.  Then  answered  Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water, 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to 
be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

In  all  these  instances  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  spoken 
of  is  that  gift,  not  in  his  ordinary,  regenerating  and  sanc- 
tifying power ;  but  in  his  extraordinary,  miracle-working 
power ;  for  the  record  is  express  on  this  point  in  three  of 
the  instances ;  and  in  the  other — the  case  of  the  disciples 
at  Samaria — it  is  said,  that  "  Simon  saw  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  given." 

This  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Spirit,  manifested  by 
speaking  with  tongues,  is  something  altogether  different 
from  the  ordinary,  regenerating,  and  sanctifying  gift  of  the 
Spirit ;  especially,  in  the  design  with  which  it  is  given. 
In  the  xiv.  Chap,  of  1  Cor.,  Paul  gives  a  full  exposition  of 
this  whole  subject.  In  the  course  of  that  exposition  he 
teUs  us — "  tongues  are  for  a  sign,  not  to  them  that  believe, 
but  to  them  that  believe  not."  Ver.  22 — And  the  record 
contained  in  Acts  ii.  5,  6,  gives  an  apt  illustration  of  these 
words — ''  And  there  were  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  Jews, 
devout  men,  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven.  Now 
when  this  was  noised  abroad," — the  disciples  speaking  with 
other  tongues,  ver.  4, — "  the  multitude  came  together,  and 
were  confounded,  because  that  every  man  heard  them 
speak  in  his  own  language." 

On  the  subject  of  the  charismata,  or  miraculous  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  Dr.  Dabney  writes  : — "  It  was  the  bestow- 
al of  an  extraordinary  power,  for  a  purely  temporal  pur- 
pose ;  to  demonstrate  to  unbelievers  the  divine  claim  of  the 
new  dispensation.  See  1  Cor.  xiv.  22 ;  Mark  xvi.  15-18  ; 
Acts  iv.  29,  30;^  V.  12;  Heb.  ii.  4,  and  such  like  texts. 
The  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  is  the  corner-stone  of  the 
Gospel  evidence.  This  fact  was  to  be  established  by  the 
witness  of  twelve  men.  An  unbelieving  world  was  invited 
to  commit  its  spiritual  destiny  to  the  '  say-so  '  of  twelve 
men,  strangers  and  obscure.  It  was  absolutely  essential 
that  God  should  sustain  their  witness  by  some  superna- 
tural attestations." 


256  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  But  twelve  men  could  not  preach  everywhere : 
whence  it  was  at  first  equally  important  others  should 
be  armed  with  these  divine  '  signs.'  Through  what  chan- 
nel might  these  other  evangehsts  best  receive  the  power 
to  emit  them  ?  The  answer  displays  clearly  the  consisten- 
cy of  our  exposition.  It  was  most  suitable  that  the  power 
in  others  should  come  through  the  twelve  witnesses ;  be- 
cause thus  the  'signs'  exhibited,  reflected  back  an  im- 
mediate attestation  on  their  truth.  Thus  let  us  represent 
to  ourselves  a  child  of  Cornelius  the  Centurion,  exercising 
gifts  unquestionably  supernatural  before  pagans  in  Csesa- 
rea.  This  proves  that  God  has  here  intervened.  But  for 
what  end?  That  boy  can  be  no  eye-witness  to  Christ's 
resurrection ;  and  he  does  not  claim  to  be :  for  he  did  not 
see  it,  and  he  was  not  acquainted  with  Jesus'  person  and 
features.  But  he  can  say,  that  he  derived  his  power  from 
the  witness  Peter ;  and,  Peter  assured  him,  direct  from  a 
risen  Christ.  Just  so  far,  then,  as  spectators  verify  the 
supernatural  character  of  the  boy's  performances,  they  are 
a  divine  attestation  to  Peter's  words  concerning  the  re- 
surrection. So  Timothy's  charismata  were  related  to  the 
witness  of  Paul,  who  conferred  them.  In  brief,  it  was 
proper  that  others'  ability  to  exhibit  '  signs  '  should  pro- 
ceed visibly  from  the  Apostles,  because  the  use  of  the 
signs  was  to  sustain  the  testimony  of  the  twelve.  Hence 
the  rule  in  the  Apostolic  day,  which  the  acute  Simon  so 
clearly  perceived ;  that  it  was  '  through  laying  on  of  the 
Apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given.'  And  I  as- 
sert that  there  is  not  a  case  in  the  New  Testament,  where 
any  other  than  an  Apostle's  hand  was  employed  to  confer 
the  Holy  Ghost,  if  any  human  agency  was  employed. 
Search  and  see.  Hence  it  follows,  that  since  the  death  of 
the  original  twelve,  there  has  never  been  a  human  being 
in  the  Church  who  was  able  to  give  this  gift." 

"For  the  necessity  was  temporary.  After  the  death  of 
the  Apostles,  the  civilized  world  was  dotted  over  with 
churches.  "The  Canon  of  Scripture  was  complete.  The 
unbelieving  world  was  furnished  with  another  adequate 
line  of  evidence  (which  has  been  deepening  to  our  day)  in 
souls  sanctified  and  pagan   society  purified.      The  charis- 


Hehreios  vi  1,  2.  257 

niatic  signs  ceased  because  they  were  no  longor  essential. 
See  Lulce  xvi.  31.  The  world  is  now  in  such  rehition  to 
the  Scripture  testimony,  as  was  the  Jew  of  Christ's  day," 

"  Now,  we  cUxim  a  powerful  and  sufficient  proof  of  the 
correctness  of  this  theory,  in  its  satisfying  consistency.  It 
reconciles  everything  in  the  Scripture  teaching  and  his- 
tory. We  claim  that  it  tallies  exactly,  with  Paul's  pre- 
diction of  the  cessation  of  the  charismatic  powers,  in  1 
Cor.  xiii.  8.  It  explains  exactly  the  date  and  the  mode 
of  the  cessation  of  genuine  miracles  out  of  the  Church. 
Church  historians  know  how  anxiously  miracles  were 
claimed  by  the  Fathers  down  to  the  fourth  (and  indeed 
the  present)  century,  and  the  obscurity  in  which  the  facts 
in  the  second  and  third  centuries  are  involved.  Well;  on 
our  view,  real  miracles  might  have  continued  just  one 
generation  after  the  Twelve.  John,  the  aged,  might  have 
conferred  the  power  on  some  young  evangelist,  the  year 
of  the  former's  death.  The  Church  would  be  naturally 
reluctant  to  surrender  the  splendid  endowment.  The  dis- 
crimination between  surprising,  and  truly  supernatural 
events,  was  crude.  The  age  of  '  pious  frauds '  was  at 
hand.  Thus  as  the  genuine  miracles  faded  out,  the  spu- 
rious had  their  day."    {Dahneys  Theology,  pp.  752,  753.) 

If  this  account  of  the  purpose  and  history  of  the  miracu- 
lous gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Apostles  be  accepted,  and  after  a  careful 
examination  we  are  satisfied  that  it  is  the  true  account ; 
it  follows  that  the  passages  of  Scripture  quoted  at  the  head 
of  this  section  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  sacrament  of 
Confirmation. 

§  94.  Hebrews  vi.  1,  2. 

"Therefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection ;  not  laying  again 
the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  of  faith 
toward  God,  of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying 
on  of  hands,  and  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eter- 
nal judgment." 

To  the  Romanist,  who  cites  the  passage  in  support  of 
Confirmation,  because  it  speaks  of  "  the  doctrine  of  laying 


258  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

on  of  hands,"  it  miglit  be  sufficient  to  reply ; — In  your 
rite  of  confirmation,  there  is  no  laying  on  of  hands.  As 
Archbishop  Kenrick  informs  us,  there  is  *'  the  extension 
of  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  over  all  who  are  to  be  confirmed 
prescribed  in  the  Pontifical;" — but  the  extension  of  the 
hands  so  as  to  ''represent  the  outspread  wings  of  a  dove," 
is  one  thing ;  the  "  laying  on  of  hands"  is  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent thing.  As  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
declares — "  The  form  of  Confirmation  consists  of  these 
"  words  :  *  I  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  I  con- 
"  firm  thee  with  the  chrism  of  salvation,  in  the  name  of 
"  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  acts  essential  to  the  sacrament  are,  signing  with  the 
sign  of  the  cross,  and  anointing  with  chrism: — hence  in 
the  Greek  Church  the  sacrament  is  called  "  Unction  with 
chrism."  Even  if  we  regard  the  spreading  of  the  bishop's 
hands  over  the  person  to  be  confirmed,  as  "a  laying  on 
of  hands,"  it  is  a  mere  accident,  not  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  the  rite ;  and  so,  can  with  no  propriety,  give 
name  to  the  rite  : — and  the  argument  here  turns  entirely 
upon  the  name. 

What  does  the  Apostle  mean  by  "  the  doctrine  of  lay- 
ing on  of  hands,"  in  this  summary  of  "  the  principles  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  ?"  This  question  we  must  answer 
in  the  same  way  we  have  already  answered  a  similar 
question  respecting  his  meaning  in  the  preceding  specifica- 
tion, "  the  doctrine  of  baptisms," — not  baptism,  as  the 
words  are  often  quoted  by  the  advocates  of  confirmation. 
(See  Baptism,  §  20.) 

The  Jewish  Christians,  to  whom  these  words  were 
originally  addressed,  were  familiar  with  "  the  laying  on  of 
hands — (1)  In  pronouncing  a  solemn  blessing,  as  was  done 
by  Jacob  upon  the  two  sons  of  Joseph."  See  Gen.  xlviii. 
14-16.  (2)  In  the  confession  of  sin  over  the  victim  which 
was  to  be  offered  as  an  atoning  sacrifice  to  God.  See  Lev. 
xvi.  21.  (3)  In  the  solemn  setting  apart  of  a  person  to 
some  public  oflice  to  which  God  had  called  him;  see 
Numb,  xxvii.  23 ;  especially  to  the  work  of  the  ministry. 
See  Acts  xiii.  3.  (4)  In  the  miraculous  healing  of  dis- 
eases. See  Matt.  ix.  18.    (5)  And  especially,  in  conferring 


Confirmation  in  the  Protestant  Epismpal  Church.    259 

the  miraculous  charismata  of  tlio  Holy  Ghost.  See  Acts 
xix.  6.  The  expression  "  the  doctrine  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands  "  would  properly  cover  all  these. 

In  the  text  under  examination,  where  "  the  doctrine  of 
the  laying  on  of  hands  "  is  spoken  of  as  one  of  "  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,"  i.  e.,  one  of  the  truths  of 
the  Christian  religion  to  be  early  learned  and  understood, 
we  think  the  Apostle  has  specially  in  mind  the  laying  on 
of  hands  in  conferring  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  That  the  early  Christians  prized  inordinately 
these  charismata,  placing  their  possession  above  that  of 
the  essential  Christian  graces  of  faith,  hope  and  charity 
(love),  we  learn  from  1  Cor.  xii.,  xiii.,  xiv.,  where  Paul 
instructs  the  Christians  at  Corinth  in  this  doctrine  at  great 
length.  That  the  Jewish  Christians  to  whom  the  words 
of  the  text  are  addressed,  needed  instruction  in  "  the  doc- 
trine of  laying  on  of  hands,"  elementary  as  that  doctrine 
was,  is  evident  from  the  Apostle's  words — "For  when  for 
the  time  ye  ought  to  be  teachers,  ye  have  need  that  one 
teach  you  again  which  be  the  first  principles  of  the  ora- 
cles of  God  ;  and  are  become  such  as  have  need  of  milk, 
and  not  of  strong  meat."  (Heb.  v.  12.)  The  tendency  of 
the  Jew,  educated  as  he  had  been  under  the  complicated 
ceremonial  of  Moses'  law,  was  to  mistake  on  just  such 
points  as  this : — and  for  this  reason,  we  think  that  this  is 
what  the  Apostle  especially  refers  to  in  his  words  "  the 
doctrine  of  laying  on  of  hands."  As  we  have  already 
seen,  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  rite  or  sacrament  of 
confirmation. 


§  95.   Confirmation  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

1.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  expressly  denies 
the  sacramental  character  of  confirmation.  In  the  Arti- 
cles of  Keligion  we  read — "  There  are  two  sacraments 
ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say, 
Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  Those  five  com- 
monly called  Sacraments,  that  is  to  say,  Confirmation, 
Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony,  and  Extreme  Unction,  are 
not  to  be  counted  for  sacraments  of  the  Gospel,  being  such 


250  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

as  have  grown  partly  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  Apos- 
tles, partly  are  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  but 
yet  have  not  like  nature  of  sacraments  with  Baptism,  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  for  that  they  have  not  any  visible  sign 
or  ceremony  ordained  of  God."    {Art.  XXV.) 

2.  Apostolic  example  is  claimed  for  the  rite  of  Confirma- 
tion in  the  following  prayer,  which  is  part  of  the  Order  of 
Confirmation : — "  Almighty  and  everlasting  God,  who 
makest  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  those  things  which  are 
good,  and  acceptable  unto  thy  Divine  Majesty;  We  make 
our  humble  supplication  unto  thee  for  these  thy  servants, 
upon  whom,  after  the  example  of  thy  holy  Apostles,  we 
have  now  laid  our  hands,  to  certify  them,  by  this  sign,  of 
thy  favor  and  gracious  goodness  toward  them." 

3.  Confirmation  is  prescribed  as  a  condition  precedent 
to  Communion.  ''  And  there  shall  none  be  admitted  to  the 
Holy  Communion,  until  such  time  as  he  be  confirmed,  or 
be  ready  and  desirious  to  be  confirmed.  "•(0?'rfer  of  Con- 
firmation, closing  ruhrick.) 

Episcopal  writers  cite,  as  authority  for  the  "  Apostolic 
example  "  claimed  for  Confirmation,  the  same  passages  of 
Scripture  to  wdiich  Eomanists  appeal  as  furnishing  proof 
of  its  sacramental  character  ;  viz.,  Acts  viii.  14-19,  xix.  1- 
7,  and  Heb.  vi.  1,  2.  In  our  examination  of  these  passages, 
we  have  shown  that  the  first  two  have  exclusive  reference, 
and  the  third  special  reference  to  the  bestow^al  of  the  mi- 
raculous gifts  of  the  Spirit;  and  so,  they  prove  neither 
sacramental  character,  nor  Apostolic  example  for  Confirma- 
tion. 

In  the  "preface"  to  "  the  Order  of  Confirmation  "  we  are 
taught  that  this  rite  is  observed, — "  to  the  end,  that  child- 
ren, being  now  come  to  the  years  of  discretion,  and  having 
learned  what  their  Godfathers  and  Godmothers  promised 
for  them  in  Baptism,  may  themselves,  with  their  own 
mouth  and  consent,  openly  before  the  Church,  ratify  and 
confirm  the  same ;  and  also  promise,  that,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  they  will  evermore  endeavor  themselves  faithfully  to 
observe  such  things,  as  they  by  their  own  confession,  have 
assented  to." 

According  to  this  representation,  the  end  of  Confirma- 


Co/iJinnatio)h  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.    261 

tion  is  just  that  which  the  Lord  has  assigned  to  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper,  viewed  as  a  covenanting  rite. 
(See  part  1,  ch.  iv.)  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  both 
seals  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  : — the  first,  a  seal  of  that 
covenant  in  its  Abrahamic  form,  where,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment the  parent  covenants  for  the  child, — the  other,  a  seal 
of  that  covenant  in  its  "better"  form  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment (covenant),  where,  by  the  same  divine  appointment, 
a  person  who  has  come  to  years  of  discretion,  enters  into 
covenant  with  God  on  his  own  behalf.  The  Covenant  of 
Grace,  in  all  its  forms,  is  one  and  the  same;  so  that  when 
a  person,  baptized  in  infancy,  who  has  now  come  to  years 
of  discretion,  approaches  the  Lord's  Table  intelligently,  he 
does  "  with  his  own  mouth  and  consent,  openly  and  before 
the  Church,  ratify  and  confirm"  all  that  was  "promised 
for  him  in  baptism;  "  and  engage,'"  by  the  grace  of  God, 
evermore  to  endeavor  himself  faithfully  to  observe  "  all  the 
obligations  of  the  covenant. 

That  the  approach  to  the  Lord's  table  for  the  first  time, 
of  a  member  of  the  Church  baptized  in  infancy,  should  be 
preceded  by  an  examination  as  to  his  personal  faith  in  Christ, 
and  by  some  public  profession  of  that  faith,  seems 
eminently  proper.  That  this  public  profession  should  be 
accompanied  by  prayer  for  the  professing  person,  and  even, 
if  the  Church  see  fit  so  to  order,  by  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  of  the  minister,  in  benediction,  certainly,  none  can 
reasonably  object.  All  this,  with  the  exception  of  the  im- 
position of  hands,  is  commonly  practiced  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  of  America.  But,  it  is  distinctly  understood, 
that  all  this  does  not  constitute  a  new  sacrament,  or  even 
a  new  rite  in  the  Church,  but  is  "part  and  parcel  "  of  the 
celebration  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  was  this,  that  John  Calvin — often  unfairly  quoted  as 
favoring  a  rite  of  Confirmation — approved  of.  His  words 
are — "It  was  an  ancient  custom  in  the  Church  for  the 
children  of  Christians,  after  they  were  come  to  years  of 
discretion,  to  be  presented  to  the  bishop  in  order  to  fulfill 
that  duty  which  was  required  of  adults  who  offered  them- 
selves for  baptism.  For  such  persons  were  placed  among 
the  catechumens,  till,  being  duly  instructed  in  the  myste- 


262  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

ries  of  Christianity,  they  were  enabled  to  make  a  confession 
of  their  faith  before  the  bishop  and  all  the  people.  There- 
fore those  who  had  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  because 
they  had  not  then  made  such  a  confession  of  faith  before  the 
Church,  at  the  close  of  childhood,  or  commencement  of 
adolescence,  were  again  presented  by  their  parents,  and 
were  examined  by  the  bishop,  according  to  the  form  of  the 
catechism  which  was  then  in  common  use.  That  this  ex- 
ercise which  deserved  to  be  regarded  as  sacred  and  solemn, 
might  have  the  greater  dignity  and  reverence,  they  also 
practiced  the  ceremony  of  imposition  of  hands.  .  .  .  Such 
imposition  of  hands,  as  is  simply  connected  with  benedic- 
tion, I  highly  approve,  and  wish  it  were  now  restored  to 
its  primitive  use,  uncorrupted  by  superstition.  ...  I  sin- 
cerely wish  that  we  retained  the  custom,  which  I  have 
stated  was  practiced  among  the  ancients  before  this  abor- 
tive image  of  a  sacrament  made  its  appearance.  For  it  was 
not  such  a  confirmation  as  the  Romanists  pretend,  which 
cannot  be  mentioned  without  injury  to  baptism;  but  a 
catechetical  exercise,  in  which  children  or  youth  used  to 
deliver  an  account  of  their  faith  in  the  presence  of  the 
Church."  {Calvin  s  Institutes,  Book  iv.  ch.  xix.) 


Penance  Dcjincd,  263 


CHAPTER  II. 

PENANCE. 

§  96.  Penance  defined,  ?  97.  Contrition.  §  98.  Confession,  g  99.  James  v.  16,  2 
Cor.  V.  18-21,  1  John  1.  9,  10.  ?  100.  Satisfaction.  §  101.  Absolution,  g  102. 
John  XX.  22,  23.    1 103.  A^ts  ii.  38. 

§  96.  Penance  Defined. 

"  Canon  I.  If  any  one  saith,  that  in  the  Catholic  Church 
"  Penance  is  not  truly  and  properly  a  sacrament,  instituted 
"  by  Christ  our  Lord  for  reconciling  the  faithful  unto  God, 
"as  often  as  they  fall  into  sin  after  baptism:  let  him  be 
"  anathema." 

"For  by  baptism  putting  on  Christ  (Gal.  iii.  23,)  we  are 
"  made  therein  entirely  a  new  creature,  obtaining  a  full 
"and  entire  remission  of  all  sin;  unto  which  newness  and 
"  entireness,  however,  we  are  no  ways  able  to  arrive  by  the 
"  sacrament  of  Penance,  without  many  tears  and  great 
"  labors  on  our  part,  the  divine  justice  demanding  this ; 
"so  that  penance  has  justly  been  called  by  holy  Fathers  a 
"  laborious  kind  of  baptism.  And  this  sacrament  of  Pen- 
"ance  is,  for  those  who  have  fallen  after  baptism,  necessary 
"  unto  salvation ;  as  baptism  itself  is  for  those  who  have  not 
"as  yet  been  regenerated."  (Ch.  ii.) 

"The  holy  synod  doth  furthermore  teach,  that  the  form 
"  of  the  sacrament  of  Penance,  wherein  its  force  {vis)  prin- 
"  cipally  consists,  is  placed  in  those  words  of  the  minister : 
"  /  absolve  thee,  (fee;  to  which  words  indeed  certain 
"  prayers  are,  according  to  the  custom  of  holy  Church,  laud- 
"  ably  joined,  which  nevertheless  by  no  means  regard  the 
"  essence  of  that  form,  neither  are  they  necessary  for  the 
"  administration  of  the  sacrament  itself.  But  the  acts  of 
"  the  penitent  himself,  to   wit,  contrition,  confession,  and 


264  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"satisfaction,  are  as  it  were,  the  matter  of  this  sacrament. 
"  Which  acts,  inasmuch  as  they  are  by  God's  institution, 
"  required  in  the  penitent  for  the  integrity  of  the  sacra- 
"  ment  and  for  the  full  and  perfect  remission  of  sins,  are 
"  for  this  reason  called  the  parts  of  penance."  (Ch.  iii.) 
{Council  of  Trent,  Session  xiv.) 

According  to  the  above-cited  deliverances  of  the  Council 
of  Trent — (1)  Penance  is  a  "  true  and  proper  sacrament." 
(2)  It  was  "  instituted  by  Christ  our  Lord  for  reconciling 
the  faithful  unto  God,  as  often  as  they  fall  into  sin  after 
baptism."  (3)  That  "  for  those  who  have  fallen  after 
baptism,  it  is  necessary  unto  salvation ;  as  baptism  itself  is 
to  those  who  have  not  as  yet  been  regenerated."  (4)  That 
its  "form,  wherein  its  force  (vis)  principally  consists,  is 
placed  in  those  words  of  the  minister  :  I  absolve  thee,  &c." 
(5)  That  the  several  "parts  of  penance  are  contrition,  con- 
fession, and  satisfaction." 

*     §  97.   Contrition. 

"  Contrition,  which  holds  the  first  place  among  the  afore- 
"  said  acts  of  the  penitent,  is  a  sorrow  of  mind,  and  a  de- 
"  testation  for  sin  committed,  with  the  purpose  of  not  sin- 
"  ning  for  the  future.  This  movement  of  contrition  was 
"  at  all  times  necessary  for  obtaining  the  pardon  of  sins ; 
"  and  in  one  w^ho  has  fallen  after  baptism,  it  then  at  length 
"  prepares  for  the  remission  of  sins,  when  it  is  united  with 
"  confidence  in  the  divine  mercy,  and  with  the  desire  of 
"  performing  the  other  things  which  are  required  for  rightly 
"  receiving  this  sacrament.  .  .  .  The  Synod  teaches  more- 
"  over,  that,  although  it  sometimes  happens  that  this  con- 
"trition  is  perfect  through  charity,  and  reconciles  man 
"  with  God  before  this  sacrament  be  actually  received,  the 
"said  reconciliation,  nevertheless,  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to 
"  that  contrition,  independently  of  the  desire  of  the  sacra- 
"  ment  which  is  included  therein.  And  as  to  that  imper- 
''  feet  contrition,  which  is  called  attrition,  because  that  it 
"  is  commonly  conceived  either  from  the  consideration  of 
"  the  turpitude  of  sin,  or  from  the  fear  of  hell  and  of  pun- 
"  ishment,  it  declares  that  if,  with  the  hope  of  pardon,  it 


Confession.  2G5 

"  exclude* tlie  wisli  to  sin,  it  not  only  does  not  make  a  man 
"  a  hypocrite,  and  a  greater  sinner,  but  that  it  is  even  a 
"  gift  of  God,  and  an  impulse  of  the  Holy  Ghost,— who  does 
"  not  indeed  as  yet  dwell  in  the  penitent,  but  only  moves 
"}iini, — whereby  the  penitent  being  assisted  prepares  a. 
"  way  for  himself  unto  justice.  And  although  this  (attri- 
"  tion)  cannot  of  itself,  without  the  sacrament  of  Penance, 
"  conduct  the  sinner  to  justification,  yet  does  it  dispose  him 
"  to  obtain  the  grace  of  God  in  the  sacrament  of  Penance. 
''For  smitten  profitably  with  this  fear,  the  Ninevites,  at 
"  the  preaching  of  Jonas,  did  fearful  penance,  and  obtained 
"  mercy  from  the  Lord.  Wherefore  falsely  do  some  calum- 
"  niate  Catholic  writers,  as  if  they  had  maintained  that  the 
"sacrament  of  Penance  confers  grace  without  any  good 
"  motion  on  the  part  of  those  who  receive  it;  a  thing  which 
"  the  Church  of  God  never  taught  or  thought."  {Council 
of  Trent,  ch.  iv.  Session  xiv.) 

In  contrast  with  this  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  is 
that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  expressed  in  her 
"  Larger  Catechism,  Ans.  76."  "  Repentance  unto  life  is  a 
saving  grace  wrought  in  the  heart  of  a  sinner  by  the  Spirit 
and  word  of  God,  whereby  out  of  the  sight  and  sense,  not 
only  of  the  danger,  but  also  of  the  filthiness  and  odiousness 
of  his  sins,  and  upon  the  apprehension  of  God's  mercy  in 
Christ,  to  such  as  are  penitent,  he  so  grieves  for,  and  hates 
his  sins,  as  that  he  turns  from  them  all  to  God,  purposing 
and  endeavoring  constantly  to  walk  with  him  in  all  the 
ways  of  new  obedience." 

§  98.  Confession. 
"  Canon  VL  If  any  one  denieth,  either  that  sacramental 
"confession  was  instituted,  or  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
"  of  divine  right ;  or  saith,  that  the  manner  of  confessing 
"  secretly  to  a  priest  alone,  which  the  Church  hath  ever 
"  observed  from  the  beginning,  and  doth  observe,  is  alien 
"  from  the  institution  and  command  of  Christ,  and  is  a 
"  human  invention  ;  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of 
Trent,  Session  xiv.) 

"  Sacramental  Confession  is  the  laying  open  the  state  ot 
our  souls  to  a  priest,  by  humbly  accusing  ourselves  to  him 
12 


266  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

of  all  our  sins,  in  order  to  obtain  the  grace  of  absolution." 
[Hays  Sincere  Christian,  p.  253.) 

"  All  the  mortal  sins,  of  which  after  a  diligent  examina- 
"  tion  of  themselves,  they  are  conscious,  must  needs  be 
"  by  penitents  enumerated  in  confession,  even  though  those 
"  sins  be  most  hidden,  and  committed  only  against  the  two 
"  last  precepts  of  the  decalogue, — sins  which  sometimes 
"  wound  the  soul  more  grievously,  and  are  more  danger- 
''ous,  than  those  which  are  committed  outwardly."  Coun- 
cil of    Trent,  ch.  v.  Session  xiv.) 

That  the  reader  may  understand  the  Council  of  Trent 
when  it  speaks  of  "the  two  last  precepts  of  the  decalogue," 
we  give  the  following  extract  from  Bishop  Verot's  "  Short 
Catechism,"  pp.  5,  6. 

"  The  ten  commandments  of  God." 

"  1.  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God;  thou  shalt  not  have  strange 
gods  before  me. 

2.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in 
vain. 

3.  Remember  that  thou  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day. 

4.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

5.  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

6.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

8.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neigh- 
bor. 

9.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife. 

10.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  goods." 

The  reader  will  see  that  here,  what  Protestants  give  as 
the  second  commandment  is  entirely  omitted,  whilst  what 
they  give  as  the  tenth  commandment  is  divided  into  two, 
thus  keeping  up  the  number  of  ten,  implied  in  the  name 
"  decalogue."  The  twentieth  chapter  of  Exodus,  in  the 
Douay  Bible,  is  substantially  the  same  with  the  same 
chapter  in  the  authorized  version.  It  is  not  in  their  English 
Bible;  but  in  their  Catechisms,  committed  to  memory  by 
all  before  confirmation,  and  read  by  hundreds  where  the 
Bible  is  read  by  one,  that  the  Church  of  Eome  omits  the 
second  commandment. 

"  In  confession  we  should  employ  all  that  care  and  ex- 


James  V.  16.     2  Cor.  v.  18-21.     1  John  L  9,  lU.    2(37 

"  actness  which  we  usually  bestow  upon  worldly  concerns 
"  of  the  greatest  moment,  and  all  our  ciforts  should  be 
"  directed  to  effect  the  cure  of  our  spiritual  maladies,  and 
"  to  eradicate  sin  from  the  soul.  With  the  bare  enumera- 
"  tion  of  our  mortal  sins,  we  should  not  be  satisfied ;  that 
*•  enumeration  we  should  accompany  with  the  relation  of 
"  such  circumstances  as  considerably  aggravate  or  cxtcnu- 
"  ate  their  malice.  Some  circumstances  are  such,  as  of 
"  themselves  to  constitute  mortal  guilt,  on  no  account  or 
"  occasion  whatever,  therefore,  are  such  circumstances  to 
"  be  omitted.  Has  any  one  imbrued  his  hands  in  the  blood 
"  of  his  fellow-man  ?  He  must  state  whether  his  victim 
"  was  a  layman  or  an  ecclesiastic.  Has  he  had  criminal 
"  intercourse  with  any  one  ?  He  must  state  whether  the 
*'  female  was  married  or  unmarried,  a  relative  or  a  person 
"  consecrated  to  God  by  vow.  These  are  circumstances 
"  which  alter  the  species  of  the  sins :  the  first  is  called 
"  simple  fornication;  the  second  adultery;  the  third  incest, 
*'  and  the  fourth  sacrilege.  Again,  theft  is  numbered  in 
"  the  catalogue  of  sins ;  but  if  a  person  has  stolen  a  guinea, 
"  his  sin  is  less  grievous  than  if  he  had  stolen  one  or  two 
"  hundred  guineas,  or  a  considerable  sum ;  and  if  the 
"  stolen  money  were  sacred,  the  sin  would  be  still  aggra- 
"  vated." 

"  Those  who  yielding  to  foolish  bashfulness,  cannot  in- 
"  duce  themselves  to  confess  their  sins,  are  to  be  encour- 
"  aged  by  exhortation,  and  to  be  reminded,  that  there  is 
"  no  reason  whatever  why  they  should  yield  to  such  false 
"  delicacy ;  that  to  no  one  can  it  appear  surprising,  if 
"  persons  fall  into  sin,  the  common  malady  of  the  human 
"  race,  and  the  natural  appendage  of  human  infirmity." 
{Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  194,  198.) 

§99.  James  v.  16.     2  Cor.  v.  18-21.     1  John  i.  9,  10. 

"  Confess  your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for 
another,  that  ye  may  be  healed.  The  effectual  fervent 
prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much."  {Authorized 
Versio7i.) 

"  Confess  therefore,  your  sins  one  to  another,  and  pray 


'268  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

for  one  another^  that  you  may  be  saved  :  for  tlie  continual 
prayer  of  a  just  man  availeth  much."  (Douay  Version.) 
On  this  the  Douay  Bible  has  the  following  note  :  "  Confess 
"  your  sins  one  to  another.  That  is,  to  the  Priests  of  the 
"  Church,  whom  (v.  14)  he  had  ordered  to  be  called  for, 
"  and  brought  in  to  the  sick  :  moreover,  to  confess  to  per- 
"  sons  who  had  no  power  to  forgive  sins  would  be  useless. 
"  Hence  the  precept  here  means,  that  we  must  confess  to 
"  men  whom  God  hath  appointed,  and  who,  by  their  ordi- 
"  nation  and  jurisdiction,  have  received  the  j^ower  of  re- 
"  mitting  sins  in  his  name." 

On  this  we  remark : — 

1.  The  mistranslation  of  the  word  preshuterous,  in  v. 
14,  by  priests,  we  have  already  examined.    See  §  73. 

2.  The  Greek  word  iathete,  in  v.  16,  which  the  Douay 
Bible  renders  saved,  is  used  properly  respecting  diseases 
of  the  body,  and  only  tropically  of  moral  diseases :  and 
here  is  correctly  rendered  in  the  Authorized  Version, 
'' healed."  As  Alford  remarks,  *' the  context  forbids  any 
other  meaning." 

3.  The  meaning  of  the  Apostle  here,  plainly,  is — "  Con- 
fess your  faults  (sins)  one  to  another, — here  it  w^ould  be, 
the  sick  man  confessing  to  the  Elders  of  the  Church, — 
not  that  they  may  grant  you  absolution — but  that  they 
may  pray  intelligently  for  you;  and  this,  in  order  that 
through  their  intelligent  prayer  of  faith,  you  may  be 
healed.  The  expression,  "  one  to  another,  one  for  another," 
exclude  the  idea  of  official  superiority  in  either, — as 
brethren  in  Christ  they  stand  upon  an  equal  footing ;  the 
one  who  confesses  to-day  may  be  the  one  to  hear  the  con- 
fession to-morrow ;  the  one  who  prays  to-day  may  be  the 
one  to  be  prayed  for  to-morrow. 

2  Cor.  V.  18-21.  "  And  all  things  are  of  God,  who 
hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath 
given  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,  to  ivit :  that  God 
was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not 
imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them ;  and  hath  committed 
unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation.  Now  then  we  are 
ambassadors  for  Christ,  as  though  God  did  beseech  you 


James  v.  IG.     2  Cor.  v.  18-21.     1  John  i.  9,  10.   2G9 

by  us ;  we  pray  you  in  Christ's  stead,  be  ye  reconciled  to 
God.  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew 
no  sin ;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  him." 

On  this  passage  Bishop  Hay  writes :  "  If  the  pastors  of 
the  Church  be  the  ministers  of  our  reconcihation  with  God, 
if  the  word  of  reconciliation,  the  power  of  pronouncing  sen- 
tence of  absolution  upon  us  be  placed  in  them,  it  is,  of 
course  by  their  ministry  alone  that  we  can  obtain  this  re- 
conciliation. Christ  instituted  no  other  way,  therefore  it 
is  our  strict  obligation  to  have  recourse  to  them  for  this 
benefit,  by  laying  open  the  state  of  our  souls  before  them 
in  the  sacrament  of  confession,  that  they  may  apply  to  us 
the  means  of  our  reconciliation  in  the  way  that  Christ 
requires  of  them  to  do."  {Sincere  Christian.) 

The  "word  of  reconciliation,"  of  which  Paul  says  God 
had  given  to  him  "the  ministry,"  as  is  expressly  stated  in 
the  context  is  the  truth,  that  "  God  in  Christ  is  reconciling 
the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto 
them," — "  that  he  had  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who 
knew  no  sin;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  . 
God  in  him;"  in  other  words — the  gospel — the  New  Tes- 
tament ;  and  so  his  declaration  here,  is  j  ust  a  repetition  of 
what  he  had  said  a  httle  before — God  hath  "made  us 
able  ministers  of  the  New  Testament ;  not  of  the  letter, 
but  of  the  spirit ;  for  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth 
life,"  (2  Cor.  iii.  6);  and  we  can  hardly  conceive  of  an  in- 
terpretation more  utterly  at  variance  with  the  whole  con- 
text than  that  of  Bishop  Hay,  which  makes  "  the  word  of 
reconcihation  "  to  be,  the  words  of  absolution  pronounced 
by  a  Priest  over  his  "  penitent." 

1  John  i.  9,  10.  "If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful 
and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all 
unrighteousness.  If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned,  we 
make  him  a  liar,  and  his  word  is  not  in  us."  This  passage 
is  sometimes  quoted  by  Eomanists  in  support  of  their  doc- 
trine of  confession,  assuming  that  the  confession  here 
spoken  of  is  confession  to  a  priest.  Nothing  of  this  kind 
is  stated  in  the  text ;  the  Apostle's  expression  is  general, 
"  if  we  confess  our  sins,"  without  any  specification  as  to 


270  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

whom  the  confession  is  to  be  made.  In  all  such  cases,  a 
general  expression  must  be  interpreted  by  comparison 
with  other  passages  in  which  the  expression  is  specific : — 
such  as — Ps.  xxxii.  5.  I  acknowledge  my  sin  unto  thee, 
and  mine  iniquity  have  I  not  hid.  I  said,  I  will  confess 
my  transgressions  unto  the  Lord;  and  thou  forgavest  the 
iniquity  of  my  sin."  See  also  Ps.  li.  2,  3;  Ezek.  x.  1:  Deut. 
ix.  4,  20. 

§  100.  Satisfaction. 

"  Canon  XIII.  If  any  one  saith,  that  satisfaction  for 
"  sins,  as  to  their  temporal  punishment,  is  nowise  made  to 
"  God,  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  punish- 
"  ments  inflicted  by  him,  and  patiently  borne,  or  by  those 
"  enjoined  by  the  priest,  nor  even  by  those  voluntarily  un- 
"  dertaken,  as  by  fastings,  prayers,  alms-deeds,  or  by  other 
"  works  also  of  piety ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  best  penance 
"  is  merely  a  new  life :  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  XIV.  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  satisfactions, 
"  by  which  penitents  redeem  their  sins  through  Jesus 
"  Christ,  are  not  a  worship  of  God,  but  traditions  of  men, 
"  which  obscure  the  doctrine  of  grace,  and  the  true  wor- 
"  ship  of  God,  and  the  benefit  itself  of  the  death  of  Christ ; 
"  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent,  Session  xiv.) 

"  Theologians  make  use  of  the  word  '  satisfaction,'  to 
"  signify  the  compensation  made  by  man  to  God,  by  doing 
"  something  in  atonement  for  the  sins  which  he  has  com- 
"  mitted." 

"  This  sort  of  satisfaction,  embracing,  as  it  does,  many 
"  degrees,  admits  of  many  acceptations.  The  first  degree 
"  of  satisfaction,  and  that  which  stands  pre-eminently 
"  above  all  the  rest,  is  that  by  which  whatever  is  due  by 
"  us  to  God,  on  account  of  our  sins  is  paid  abundantly, 
"  although  he  should  deal  with  us  according  to  the  strictest 
*'  rigor  of  his  justice.  This,  we  say,  has  appeased  God  and 
"  rendered  him  propitious  to  us,  and  for  it  we  are  indebted 
"  to  Christ  alone,  who,  having  paid  the  price  of  our  sins 
"  on  the  cross,  offered  to  his  Eternal  Father  a  superabun- 
"  dant  satisfaction.  No  created  being  could  have  paid  so 
"  heavy  a  debt  for  us :  'He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,' 


Satisfaction.  271 

"  says  St.  John,  ' and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  those 
"  of  the  whole  world.'  (1  John  ii.  2.)  This  satisfaction, 
"  therefore,  is  full  and  superabundant,  commensurate  to 
"  all  sorts  of  sins  perpetrated  by  the  human  race ;  it 
"  gives  to  man's  actions  merit  before  God;  without  it  they 
"  could  avail  him  nothing  to  eternal  life." 

"  There  is  another  sort  of  satisfaction,  which  is  called 
"  canonical,  and  is  performed  within  a  certain  fixed  period 
"  of  time.  Hence,  according  to  the  most  ancient  practice 
"  of  the  Church,  when  penitents  are  absolved  from  their 
"  sins,  some  penance  is  imposed,  the  performance  of  which 
"is  commonly  called  'satisfaction.'  " 

"  Any  sort  of  punishment  endured  for  sin,  although  not 
"  imposed  by  the  priest,  but  spontaneously  undertaken  by 
"  the  sinner,  is  also  called  by  the  same  name ;  it  belongs 
"  not,  however,  to  j^enance  as  a  sacrament :  the  satisfaction 
"  which  constitutes  part  of  the  sacrament  is,  as  we  have 
"  already  said,  that  which  is  imposed  by  the  priest,  and 
"  which  must  be  accompanied  with  a  deliberate  and  firm 
"purpose  carefully  to  avoid  sin  for  the  future."  {Catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  199,  200.) 

"  Q.  What  is  sacramental  satisfaction  ? 

A.  It  is  the  faithful  perfarmance  of  the  penance  imposed 
on  the  penitent  by  the  priest  in  the  sacrament  of  penance. 

Q.  Why  is  the  priest  obliged  to  impose  this  penance  on 
the  penitent? 

A.  For  three  reasons :  1.  Because  in  administering  the 
sacrament  of  penance,  the  priest  acts  as  judge,  commis- 
sioned by  Almighty  God,  so  to  reconcile  sinners  with  him, 
that,  while  he  dispenses  to  the  penitent  sinner  the  fruits  of 
the  Divine  mercy,  he  do  not  neglect  the  interest  of  his 
Divine  justice.  Now,  the  order  of  justice  requires,  that 
the  guilty  criminal  be  punished  in  a  just  proportion  to  his 
guilt,  and  this  punishment  be  inflicted  by  the  judge.  2. 
Because  as  the  pardon  granted  in  the  sacrament  of  pen- 
ance, delivers  the  sinner  not  only  from  the  guilt  of  his 
crimes,  but  also  from  the  eternal  punishment  due  to  them, 
which  through  the  mercy  of  God,  and  the  merits  of  Christ, 
is  changed  into  a  temporal  punishment,  that  the  Divine 
justice  may  be  in  some  measure  satisfied;  therefore,  it  be- 


272  Tlie  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

longs  to  the  priest,  by  whose  ministry  this  change  is  made, 
to  inflict  some  temporal  punishment  on  the  penitent,  to 
serve,  at  least  in  part,  for  what  the  divine  justice  requires." 
[Hay's  Sincere  Christian,  p.  262.) 

"  The  nature  of  the  sin,  therefore,  will  regulate  the  ex- 
"  tent  of  the  satisfaction ;  but  no  satisfaction  can  be  more 
"  salutary  than  to  require  of  the  penitent  to  devote,  for  a 
"  certain  number  of  days,  a  certain  portion  of  time  to 
"  prayer,  not  omitting  to  supplicate  the  divine  mercy  in 
"  behalf  of  all  mankind,  and  particularly  for  those  who 
"  have  departed  this  life  in  the  Lord."  {Catechism  of  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  p>.  205.) 

According  to  the  above  explanation  of  Eomish  doctrine — 

1.  "  Sacramental  satisfaction  is  the  faithful  performance 
of  the  penance  imposed  by  the  priest." 

2.  The  satisfaction  which  Christ  has  made  by  his 
"  obedience  unto  death  "  in  the  sinner's  stead,  whilst  it  is 
"superabundant,  and  commensurate  to  all  sorts  of  sins 
perpetrated  by  the  human  race,"  yet  does  it  not  supersede 
the  necessity  of  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  on  the  part 
of  the  sinner."  "What  it  does  accomj^lish  is,  "to  give  to 
man's  actions," — i.  e.,  his  acts  of  penance  performed  under 
the  priest's  injunction — "merit  before  (joA.,"  {Catechism 
of  Council  of  Trent,) — to  open  the  way  for  "  the  change 
of  the  eternal  punishment  due  to  sin,  into  a  temporal  pun- 
ishment "  {Bishop  Hay)  through  the  agency  of  the  priest 
in  the  sacrament  of  penance. 

3.  The  acts  of  penance  which  thus  meet  the  demands  of 
divine  justice,  are  such  as  (1)  "alms-deeds," — (2)  devoting 
time  "to  prayer,  for  all  mankind,  and  particularly  for 
those  who  have  departed  this  life  in  the  Lord,"  i.  e.,  souls 
in  purgatory ;  practically,  the  penance  is,  a  certain  num- 
ber of  repetitions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  (Pater  noster), 
Hail  Mary  (Ave  Maria)  and  the  creed.  (3)  Fastings — 
especially  such  as  that  of  the  people  of  Nineveh, — of  whom 
we  read: — "And  the  king  of  Nineveh  arose  from  his 
throne,  and  he  laid  his  robe  from  him,  and  covered  him 
with  sackcloth,  and  sat  in  ashes.  And  he  caused  it  to  be 
proclaimed  and  published  through  Nineveh  by  the  decree 
of  the  king  and  his  nobles,  saying,  Let  neither  man  nor 


Satisfaction.  273 

beast,  herd  nor  flock,  taste  anything ;  let  them  not  feed, 
nor  drink  water ;  but  let  man  and  beast  be  covered  with 
sackcloth,  and  cry  mightily  unto  God :  yea,  let  them  turn 
every  one  from  his  evil  way,  and  from  the  violence  that  is 
in  their  hands."  (Jonah  iii.  6-8.)  This  the  Council  of 
Trent  cites  as  an  example  of  a  "fearful  penance." 

On  this  whole  doctrine  of  "satisfaction,"  as  taught  by 
the  Church  of  Eome,  we  remark : — 

1.  It  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  representations  of 
the  Scripture  respecting  the  efficacy  of  the  atonement 
which  Christ  made  by  his  "  obedience  unto  death,"  in  such 
passages  as — "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth 
us  from  all  sin,"  (1  John  i.  7.)  "  For  by  one  offering  he 
hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified.  Whereof 
the  Holy  Ghost  also  is  a  witness  to  us :  for  after  that  he 
had  said  before,  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with 
them  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord ;  I  will  put  my  laws 
into  their  hearts,  and  in  their  minds  will  I  write  them ; 
and  their  sins  and  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more." 
(Heb.  X.  14-16.) 

2.  It  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  representations  the 
Scriptures  make  respecting  the  nature  of  prayer,  alms- 
deeds,  and  other  service  such  as  God  requires  of  the  Chris- 
tian. The  Christian's  prayer  is  the  address  of  a  child  to 
a  Father — "  Our  Father  which  art  in  Heaven,"  (Matt.  vi. 
9) — "  For  we  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage 
again  to  fear,  but  we  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adoption, 
whereby  w^e  cry,  Abba,  Father,"  (Eom.  viii.  15) ;  and  is  in 
its  nature  a  joyous  privilege, — "  Hitherto  ye  have  asked 
nothing  in  my  name;  ask,  and  ye  shall  receive,  that  your 
joy  may  be  full,"  (Jno.  xvi.  24),  whilst  this  doctrine  puts 
it  in  the  same  category  with  the  wailing  cry  of  the  lost 
soul  in  hell, — or,  if  you  please,  of  the  suffering  soul  in 
purgatory,  by  its  sufferings  making  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice  for  its  sins. 

The  following  statement  which  I  copy  from  The  Chris- 
tian Intelligencer  of  a  late  date,  will  place  this  matter  dis- 
tinctly before  the  mind  of  the  reader  :  "  "When  the  Bishop 
received  the  Rev.  Dr.  Gans,  late  of  the  (German)  Reformed 
Church,  into  the  bosom  of  the  holy  mother  of  Rome,  he 
12* 


274  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

said  among  other  things — It  is  customary  in  such  cases  to 
impose  a  slight  penance  upon  converts.  You  are,  there- 
fore, directed  to  repeat  one  'Our  Father/  one  '  Hail  Mary,' 
and  one  '  Credo.'  In  other  words,  Dr.  Gans  was  con- 
demned, as  a  punishment  for  remaining  so  long  a  heretic, 
to  say  his  prayers  once." 

§  101.  Absolution. 

"  Canon  III.  If  any  one  saith,  that  those  words  of  the 
"  Lord  the  Saviour,  '  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose 
"  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them,  and  whose 
"  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained,'  (Jno.  xx.  22,  23,) 
"  are  not  to  be  understood  of  the  power  of  forgiving  and 
"  retaining  sins  in  the  sacrament  of  Penance,  as  the 
"  Catholic  Church  has  always  from  the  beginning  under- 
"  stood  them ;  but  wrests  them,  contrary  to  the  institution 
"  of  this  sacrament,  to  the  power  of  preaching  the  gospel : 
"  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  IX.  If  any  one  saith,  that  the  sacramental 
"absolution  of  the  priest  is  not  a  judicial  act,  but  a  bare 
"  ministry  of  pronouncing  and  declaring  sins  to  be  for- 
"  given  to  him  who  confesses,  provided  only  he  believe 
"  himself  to  be  absolved,  or  (even  though)  the  priest  ab- 
"  solve  not  in  earnest,  but  in  joke  ;  or  saith,  that  the  con- 
"  fession  of  the  penitent  is  not  required,  in  order  that  the 
"  priest  may  be  able  to  absolve  him;  let  him  be  anathema." 
{Council  of  Trent,  Session  xiv.) 

"  Pronouncing  upon  his  own  actions,  every  man  has 
"  reason  to  question  the  accuracy  of  his  own  judgment, 
"  and  hence,  on  the  sincerity  of  interior  penance  the  mind 
"  must  be  held  in  anxious  suspense.  To  calm  this  our 
"  solicitude,  the  Redeemer  instituted  the  sacrament  of  pen- 
"  ance,  in  which  we  cherish  a  well-founded  hope,  that  our 
"  sins  are  forgiven  us  by  the  absolution  of  the  priest,  and 
"  the  faith  which  we  justly  have  in  the  efficacy  of  the 
"  sacraments,  has  much  influence  in  tranquillizing  the 
"  troubled  conscience  and  giving  peace  to  the  soul.  The 
"  voice  of  the  priest,  who  is  legitimately  constituted  a 
"  minister  for  the  remission  of  sins,  is  to  be  heard  as  that 


John  XX.  22,  23.  275 

"  of  Christ  himself,  who  said  to  the  Lame  man  :  '  Son,  bo 
"  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.'  "  (Matt.  ix.  2.) 

"  Let  the  sinner  pour  out  his  heart  in  fervent  thinks  to 
"  God,  who  has  invested  the  ministers  of  his  Church  with 
"  such  ample  powers  !  Unlike  the  authority  given  to  the 
"  priests  of  the  old  law,  to  declare  the  leper  cleansed  from 
"  his  leprosy,  the  power  with  which  the  priests  of  the  new 
"  law  are  invested,  is  not  simply  to  declare  that  sins  are  for- 
"  given,  but,  as  the  ministers  of  God,  really  to  absolve  from 
"  sin  :  a  power  which  God  himself,  the  author  and  source 
"  of  grace  and  justification,  exercises  through  their  minis- 
"  try."  {Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Treyit,  jpjp.  180,  182.) 

According  to  this  teaching,  when  a  priest  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  says  to  a  penitent — "I  absolve  thee" — his  words 
are  the  announcement  of  a  judicial  decision;  and  the  sins 
of  the  penitent  are  as  truly  and  completely  forgiven  as 
were  those  of  the  lame  man,  mentioned  by  Matthew,  when 
Christ  said  to  him,  "  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."  Well 
may  the  authors  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
say, — "  Justly,  therefore,  are  they  (the  priests)  called  not 
only  '  angels  (Mai.  ii.  7)  but  gods,  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6),  holding 
as  they  do  the  place  and  power,  and  authority  of  God  on 
earth.'  "  {'p.  213.) 

§102.  John  an.  22,  23. 

"  And  when  he  (Christ)  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on 
them,  and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ; 
and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained." 

To  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  as  here  recorded,  the 
Council  of  Trent  appeals,  as  furnishing  Scriptural  authori- 
ty for  the  doctrine  of  Absolution ;  as  teaching  that  the 
priest  has  been  "  legitimately  constituted  a  minister  for 
the  remission  of  sins,"  in  the  same  sense  in  which  our 
Lord  remitted  the  sins  of  "  the  lame  man,"  when  he  said, 
"  Son,  be  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."  (Matt. 
ix.  2.) 

On  this  we  remark — 

1.  It  must  be  admitted  that  our  Lord's  words, — "Wliose* 
soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ;  and 


276  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained  " — taken  by 
themselves,  will  bear  this  interpretation ;  and  further,  that 
this  i^  their  literal  meaning : — but  then,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  Jehovah,  when  finally 
commissioning  the  Prophet  Jeremiah — as  our  Lord  was 
here,  finally  commissioning  his  Apostles,  uses  analogous 
language  which  no  one,  Romanist  or  Protestant,  interprets 
literally, — "  See,  I  have  this  day  set  thee  over  the  nations, 
and  over  the  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  to  pull  down,  and 
to  destroy,  and  to  throw  down,  to  build,  and  to  plant." 
(Jer.  i.  10.)  All  agree  that  in  these  words  the  Prophet 
is  represented  as  doing  that  which  he  is  commissioned 
simply  to  declare  that  God  will  do  : — and  all  understand 
these  words  thus,  for  the  decisive  reason,  that  the  subse- 
quent history  shows  that  in  this  sense,  not  their  literal 
sense,  they  were  fulfilled.  Jeremiah  never  "  destroyed  or 
builded  "  any  kingdom ;  but  speaking  in  God's  name,  he 
declared  that  the  Lord  would  do  these  things ;  and  the 
Lord  did  them. 

2.  Adopting  this  same  method  for  determining  the 
meaning  of  Jno.  xx.  23,  we  remark, — (1)  In  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  which  give  the  subsequent  history 
of  the  Apostles'  labors  in  fulfilment  of  their  commission 
there  is  not  a  single  instance  of  their  exercising  such  au- 
thority as  the  words,  literally  understood,  convey ;  such 
authority  as  is  claimed  for  the  Romish  priest  by  the 
Council  of  Trent.  Our  Lord  exercised  this  authority  on 
more  occasions  than  one,  and  on  this  account  the  Jews 
charged  him  with  blasphemy  (Matt.  ix.  3,)  asking,  "  Who 
can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  ?  "  (Mark  ii.  7,)  but  the 
Apostles— never.  (2)  They  did  declare,  authoritatively, 
whose  sins  God  would  remit,  and  whose  sins  God  would 
retain  : — indeed,  this  was  the  burden  of  their  public  minis- 
try. "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them.  Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  (Acts  ii.  38).  "  To  him  gave  all  the 
prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  (Acts  x. 
43).  '  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved."  (Acts  xvi.  31).     "  If  thou   shalt  confess  with 


Ads  a.  38.  277 

thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  beHeve  in  thine  heart 
that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be 
saved."  (Eom.  x.  9.) 

3.  In  Luke  xxiv.  36-48,  we  have  what  is  evidently  an 
account  of  the  same  interview  of  Christ  with  his  Apostles, 
to  which  the  record  of  John  xx.  19-23,  refers.  The  part 
of  that  record  which  seems  to  correspond  to  John  xx.  22, 
23,  is  in  the  words — "  Then  opened  he  their  understanding, 
tliat  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures ;  and  said  unto 
them.  Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to 
sutFer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  and  that 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 
his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem.  And 
ye  are  my  witnesses  of  these  things."  Vers.  45-48.  (1)  The 
special  office  of  the  Spirit,  in  so  lar  as  the  Apostles  were 
concerned,  is  set  forth  in  our  Lord's  words,  addressed  to 
them  a  few  days  before — "When  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth  is 
come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth."  (Jno.  xvi.  13.) 
Thus  understanding  the  matter,  Luke's  words,  "  then 
opened  he  their  understanding,  that  they  might  under- 
stand the  Scriptures,"  record  the  fulfilment  of  Christ's — 
"  Receive  ye  the  Spirit ;  "  and  (2)  Christ's  instruction — 
"  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem," 
is  the  same  with  that  conveyed  in  the  words,  "  Whoseso- 
ever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whose- 
soever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained  ;  "  as  we  have  in- 
terpreted them  in  the  light  of  the  subsequent  history. 

§103.  Acts  ii.  38. 

"Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  {metanoesate), 
and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."     Acts  ii.  38,  Authorized  Version. 

"  But  Peter  to  them :  Do  penance  (said  he)  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for 
the  remission  of  your  sins  :  and  you  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."     Douay  Bible. 

We  cite  this  as  one  of  the  large  number  of  passages  in 


278  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Siqiper. ' 

which  the  same  difference  appears  between  the  Authorized 
Version  and  the  Douay  Bible ;  where  the  one  has  the  word 
repeat,  the  other  has  the  words  do  penance. 

In  the  original  Greek,  there  are  two  words,  metamelo- 
mai  and  inetanoeo,  which  are  alike  translated  repent  in  the 
Authorized  Version.  The  first  occurs  but  five  times  in 
the  New  Testament  (Matt.  xxi.  29,  32 ;  xxvii.  3 ;  2  Cor. 
vii.  8;  Heb.  vii.  21)  and  is  uniformly  translated  repgrtHn 
the  Douay  Bible,  as  in  the  Authorized  Version.  In  all 
the  other  instances  in  which  the  word  repent  occurs  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  the  Greek  is  metanoeo,  and  in  the 
Doua/  Bible  the  translation,  in  most  instances,  not  all,  is, 
as  in  the  passage  at  the  head  of  the  section,  do  penance. 
In  Mark  i.  15,  Luke  xvii.  4,  and  Eev.  ii.  21,  the  Douay 
Bible  translates  metanoeo,  repent;  and  in  Acts  iii.  19,  be 
penitent : — and  in  Acts  xi.  18,  2  Tim.  ii.  25,  and  Heb. 
xii.  17,  it  translates  metanoia,  repentance,  and  in  Acts  v. 
31,  penitence.     Such  are  the  facts  in  this  case. 

1.  The  two  Greek  words  nietamelomai  and  metanoeo 
differed  in  meaning.  As  determined  by  its  etymology 
as  well  as  its  classic  use,  the  first  means  to  "  regret," 
whilst  the  second  means  to  "  change  one's  mind  or  pur- 
pose "  (see  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lexicon) ;  and  the  difference 
in  meaning  seems  to  be  uniformly  observed  in  the  New 
Testament,  e.  g.  It  is  the  first  which  is  used  in  Matt, 
xxvii.  3.  "  Then  Judas,  which  had  betrayed  him,  when 
he  saw  that  he  was  condemned,  repeiited  himself,  and 
brought  again  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  to  the  chief  priests 
and  elders,  saying,  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  have  betrayed 
the  innocent  blood  :  " — the  second  is  used  in  Heb.  xii.  17. 
"  For  ye  know  how  that  afterwards,  when  he  (Esau)  would 
have  inherited  the  blessing,  he  was  rejected  :  for  he  found 
no  place  of  repentance,  though  he  sought  it  carefully  with 
tears."  With  this  difference  in  the  original,  carefully  ob- 
served by  the  .  sacred  writers,  it  is  unfortunate — to  say 
the  least  of  it — that  in  the  Authorized  Version  the  two 
Greek  words  should  both  have  been  translated  by  the 
English  word  repent. 

2.  When  repentance  is  spoken  of  as  a  condition  of  sal- 
vation, metanoeo  is  the  word  uniformly  used  in  the  Greek  ; 


Ads  a.  38.  279 

and  in  the  Autliorized  Version  it  is  always  translated  re- 
pent. In  the  Douay  Bible,  it  is  generally  translated  do 
penayice;  though  sometimes  it  is  rendered  repent  or  re- 
pentanee,  when  do  penance  would  hardly  suit  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  e.  g.,  Acts  xi.  18,  "  When  they  had 
heard  these  things,  they  held  their  peace  :  and  glorified  God, 
saying,  God  then  hath  also  to  the  Gentiles  given  repent- 
ance unto  life," — to  have  spoken  of  God's  giving  penance 
to  the  Gentiles,  would  have  been  nonsense  : — 2  Tim.  ii.  25, 
"  With  modesty  admonishing  those  who  resist  the  truth  ; 
if  at  any  time  God  give  them  repentance  to  know  the 
truth."  Here  we  might  repeat  the  remark  made  above  : 
— Heb.  xii.  17,  "For  know  ye  that  afterwards  when  he 
(Esau)  desired  to  inherit  the  blessing,  he  was  rejected  :  for 
he  found  no  place  of  repentance,  although  with  tears  he 
had  sought  it."  On  this,  the  Douay  Bible  has  the  following 
note — "  He  found,  etc."  That  is,  he  found  no  way  to  bring 
his  father  to  repent,  or  change  his  mind,  With  relation  to 
his  having  given  the  blessing  to  his  younger  brother 
Jacob."  In  Acts  xi.  18,  and  2  Tim.  ii.  25,  the  repentance 
spoken  of  is  unquestionably  that  repentance  which  is  a 
condition  of  salvation ;  and  if  it  is  proper  in  these  passages 
to  translate  the  Greek  word  nietanoia  repentance,  why 
not  in  the  other  passages,  where  it  is  used  to  designate  the 
Bame  thing  ? 

3.  To  the  Romish  translation  of  m.ctanoeo,  do  penance, 
in  such  passages  as  the  one  placed  at  the  head  of  this  sec- 
tion we  have  two  objections,  on  Eomish  grounds: — 

(1)  When  Peter  says, — "  Do  penance,  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  he  men- 
tions two  conditions,  and  this  in  a  certain  order — viz. : 
first,  "do  penance,"  and  second,  "  be  baptized."  Now,  ac- 
cording to  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  sacrament  of  penance 
is  efiicacious,  in  the  case  of  post-baptismal  sins  alone : — 
pre-baptismal  sins  can  be  reached  by  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism, and  by  that  only.  Penance  was  "instituted  by 
"Christ  our  Lord  for  reconciling  the  faithful"  {i.e., 
"  Christians)  unto  God,  as  often  as  they  fall  into  sin  after 
"  baptism."  ..."  The  sacrament  of  Penance  is,  for  those 
"  who  have  fallen  after  baptism,  necessary  unto  salvation ; 


280  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"as  baptism  itself  is,  for  those  who  have  not  been  rege- 
nerated." If  here,  then,  metanoeo  is  properly  translated 
"  do  penance,"  either  St.  Peter  or  the  Coflncil  of  Trent 
must  be  mistaken  as  to  the  proper  range  of  operation  of 
this  sacrament. 

(2)  In  the  case  referred  to  in  the  text  under  examina- 
tion; that  of  the  reception  of  3,000  into  the  Church  on  "the 
day  of  Pentecost,"  it  is  usually  regarded  as  a  sound  argu- 
ment against  immersion,  that  it  would  have  been  next  to 
impossible  for  the  twelve  Apostles  to  have  immersed  that 
number  in  but  a  part  of  a  day :  but  if  penance  must  pre- 
cede baptism,  and  each  of  the  three  thousand  must  make 
a  particular  confession  "  of  all  the  mortal  sins  of  which  he 
is  conscious,"  and  then  receive  formal  "absolution,"  the 
reception  of  the  3000  is  an  absolute  impossibility  ;~and  yet, 
the  Scriptures  say — "  And  the  same  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls."  Acts  ii.  41. 


Mati'imony  a  Sacrament,  281 


CIIAPTEP.    III. 


MATRIMONY. 


§  104.  Matrimony  a  Sacrament  g  105.  The  state  of  Celibacy  better  than  that  of 
Man-imouy.  g  106.  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy.  §  107.  Incousistency  of  Romish 
doctrine. 

§  104.  Matrimony  a  Sacrament. 

"  CAi?roN  I.  If  any  one  saith,  that  matrimony  is  not  truly 
"  and  properly  one  of  the  seven  sacraments  of  the  evan- 
"  golical  law,  (a  sacrament)  instituted  by  Christ  the  Lord  ; 
"but  that  it  has  been  invented  by  men  in  the  Church;  and 
"that  it  does  not  confer  grace:  let  him  be  anathema." 
{Council  of  Trent,  Session  xxiv.) 

"That  marriage  is  a  sacrament  has  been  at  all  times 
"held  by  the  Church  as  a  certain  and  well  ascertained 
"truth;  and  in  this  she  is  supported  by  the  authority  of 
"  the  Apostle  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  :  *  Husbands,' 
"  says  he,  '  should  love  their  wives  as  their  own  bodies : 
"  he  who  loveth  his  wife  loveth  himself,  for  no  one  ever 
"  hated  his  own  flesh,  but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it, 
"  even  as  Christ  doth  the  Church,  for  we  are  members  of 
"  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones.  For  this  cause 
"  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave 
"  to  his  wife,  and  they  shall  be  two  in  one  flesh.  This  is  a 
"  great  sacrament,  but  I  speak  in  Christ,  and  in  the 
"Church."  (Eph.  v.  28-32.)  When  the  Apostle  says; 
", '  This  is  a  great  sacrament,'  he  means,  no  doubt,  to  de- 
"  signate  marriage;  as  if  he  had  said:  the  conjugal  union 
"between  man  and  wife,  of  which  God  is  the  author,  is  a 
"  sacrament,  that  is,  a  sacred  sign  of  the  holy  union  that 
"  subsists  between  Christ  and  his  Church.  .  .  .  That  this 
"sacrament  signifies  and  confers  grace,  and  in  this  the 


282  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  nature  of  a  sacrament  principally  consists,  we  learn  from 
"  these  words  of  the  Council  of  Trent :  '  The  grace  which 
"  perfects  that  natural  love,  and  confirms  that  indissoluble 
"  union,  Christ  himself,  the  author  and  finisher  of  the  sacra- 
"  nients,  has  merited  for  us  by  his  passion! "  (CaWiism  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  230.) 

All  Protestants  hold  that  marriage  is  of  divine  institu- 
tion, having  been  established  by  God  before  "  the  fall ; " 
(see  Gen.  ii.  18-24)  and  further,  when  through  the  hard- 
ness of  men's  hearts,  the  original  law  of  marriage  had 
been,  for  a  time,  and  in  some  particulars,  set  aside,  our 
Lord  restored  it  to  its  original  integrity,  such  as  it  was  in 
the  beginning ;  (see  Matt.  xix.  1-9.)  But  they  deny  that 
marriage  is  a  sacrament  in  either  the  Eomish  or  Protestant 
sense  of  that  word. 

The  only  Scriptural  proof  of  the  sacramental  character 
of  marriage  is  that  furnished  by  Eph.  v.  32.  "  This  is  a 
great  mystery;  but  I  speak  concerning  Christ  and  the 
Church."  (Authorized  Version.)  "  This  is  a  great  sacra- 
ment ;  but  I  speak  in  Christ  and  in  the  Church."  (Douay 
Bible,)  after  the  Vulgate,  which  reads — "  Sacrame7itum 
hoc  7nagnum  est,  ego  autem  dico  in  Christo  et  in  ecclesia." 

On  this  we  remark — 

1.  The  Greek,  mustarion,  here  tran&la^ied  sacramentum 
in  the  Vulgate,  and  sacrament  in  the  Douay  Bible,  is  con- 
fessedly often  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  sense  of  a 
mystery,  i.  e.,  something  hidden,  so  that  we  would  not  know 
it  "but  for  God's  revelation  of  it  in  his  Word.  In  the  Cate- 
chism of  the  Council  of  Trent  we  read; — ''By  the  Latin 
"Fathers,  who  have  written  on  theological  subjects,  the 
"  word  sacrament  (sacramentum)  is  used  to  signify  a  sacred 
"  thing  which  lies  concealed.  The  Greeks,  to  express  the 
"  same  idea,  make  use  of  the  word  mystery  (mustarion.) 
"  This  we  understand  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  word,  when 
"  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  it  is  said :  '  that  he  might 
"  make  known  to  us  the  mystery  (sacramentum)  of  his  will; ' 
"  (Eph.  i.  9,)  and  to  Timothy,  '  great  is  the  mystery  (sacra- 
"  me7itum)  of  godliness.'  (i  Tim.  iii.  16.)"  (Catechism  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  99, 100.)     The  sense  of  mystery, 


The  state  of  Celibacy  letter  than  that  of  Marriage.  283 

not  sacrament,  the  whole  context  demands  here  just  as 
clearly  as  it  does  in  Eph.  i.  9,  or  1  Tim.  iii.-16. 

2.  It  is  not  marriage  which  Paul  here  declares  to  be  "a 
great  mystery,"  but  the  union  between  Christ  and  his 
Church,  the  peculiar  and  intimate  nature  of  which  he  sets 
forth  in  ver.  30,  "  For  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his 
flesh  and  of  his  bones."  Here  there  is  confessedly  "  a 
great  mystery; "  it  is  a  truth  we  would  never  have  dreamed 
of  had  it  not  been  taught  us  in  God's  Word  : — whilst  mar- 
riage, even  in  the  estimation  of  the  Romanist  is  not  a  great 
mystery  (sacrament),  but  the  very  least  of  them  all.  See 
§  107.  On  this  rendering  of  ver  32,  Alford  remarks — "  It 
will  be  enough  to  say  that  this  their  blunder  of  sacrament- 
urn  for  mijsterium,  has  long  ago  been  exposed  by  their 
own  commentators  Cajetan  and  Estius."  {Alford's  New 
Testament.) 

§  105.   The  state  of  Celibacy  better  than  that  of  Marriage. 

"  Canon  X.  If  any  one  saith  that  the  marriage  state  is 
"  to  be  placed  above  the  state  of  virginity,  or  of  celibacy, 
"  and  that  it  is  not  better  and  more  blessed  to  remain  in  vir- 
"  ginity,  or  in  celibacy,  than  to  be  united  in  matrimony; 
"let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent,  Session  xxiv.) 

On  this  subject  Archbishop  Gibbons  writes — "  Jesus 
Christ  manifestly  showed  his  predilection  for  virginity,  not 
only  by  always  remaining  a  Virgin,  but  also  by  selecting  a 
Virgin-mother,  and  a  Virgin-precursor  in  the  person  of 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  and  by  exhibiting  a  special  affection 
for  John  the  Evangelist,  because,  as  St.  Augustine  testifies, 
that  Apostle  was  chosen  a  Virgin,  and  such  he  always  re- 
mained. Not  only  did  our  Lord  thus  manifest,  while  on 
earth,  a  marked  predilection  for  virgins,  but  he  exhibits 
the  same  preference  for  them  in  heaven ;  for  the  hundred 
and  forty-four  thousand,  who  are  chosen  to  sing  the  New 
Canticle,  and  who  follow  the  Lamb  whithersoever  He  goetli, 
are  all  Virgins,  as  St.  John  testifies  (Rev.  xiv.  4)."  {Faith 
of  our  Fathers,  p.  454.) 

On  these  statements  of  Archbishop  Gibbons  we  remark — 

1.  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  undoubtedly  a  virgin 


284  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sujoper. 

at  the  time  of  the  conception  of  our  Lord ;  but  she  was  at 
the  time  "  espoused  to  Joseph,"  and  by  God's  direction,  she 
was  married  to  him  before  Jesus  was  born.  See  Matt.  i. 
18-25.  And  further,  as  the  results  of  this  marriage,  there 
were  brothers  and  sisters  of  our  Lord  born  in  after  years. 
We  know  that  this  is  a  point  disputed  by  Romanists ;  but 
let  the  reader  carefully  consider  Matt.  i.  25,  xii.  46,  Luke 
ii.  7,  John  ii.  12,  xiii.  55,  Acts  i.  14,  and  Gal.  i.  19,  and  we 
think  there  will  be  little  doubt  left  in  his  mind  on  the  subject. 

2.  If  it  was  John's  celibacy  which  made  him  specially 
beloved  of  Christ,  is  it  not  strange  that  the  Scriptures 
contain  no  intimation  of  it ;  and  it  was  left  for  St.  Augus- 
tine, who  wrote  nearly  400  years  afterwards — he  was 
born  A.  D.,  354 — to  discover,  and  inform  us  of  the  fact ; 
while  Paul,  who  was  a  cotemporary,  uses  language  which 
would  seem  to  imply  that  John  was  a  married  man.  See 
1  Cor.  ix.  5. 

3.  Rev.  xiv.  3,  4,  is — "  And  they  sung  as  it  were  a  new 
song  before  the  throne,  and  before  the  four  beasts,  and  the 
elders ;  and  no  man  could  learn  that  song  but  the  hundred 
and  forty  and  four  thousand,  which  were  redeemed  from 
the  earth.  Tliese  are  they  which  were  not  defiled  ivith 
ivomen;  for  they  are  virgins.  These  are  they  which  follow 
the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  goeth.  These  were  redeemed 
from  among  men,  being  the  first-fruits  unto  God  and  to 
the  Lamb."  Confining  our  attention  to  the  one  sentence 
on  which  the  Archbishop  bases  his  remark,  quoted  above, 
we  give  Pool's  paraphrase,  as  containing  its  true  exposi- 
tion— "  These  were  they  ivhich  were  not  defiled  with 
women;  for  they  are  virgins;  that  is,  that  would  not 
comply  with  anti-christian  idolatry  and  superstition ;  for 
idolatry  is  all  along  in  holy  writ  compared  to  whoredom 
and  fornication,  which  followeth  the  Lamb  whithersoever 
he  goeth;  that  follow  the  Lord  Christ  fully,  in  all  things 
keeping  close  to  the  rules  of  worship  and  life  which  he 
hath  given."  (Pool's  Annotations,  Rev.  xiv.  4.)  On  the 
same  principles  we  interpret  Paul's  language  in  2  Cor. 
xi.  2.  "  For  I  am  jealous  over  you  with  godly  jealousy  : 
for  I  have  espoused  you  to  one  husband,  that  I  may  pre- 
sent you  as  a  chaste  virgin  to  Christ :" — and  the  Arch- 


Celibacy  of  tJic  Clcrgi/.  285 

bishop  will  find,  that  if  he  attempts  to  interpret  such  lan- 
guage as  this,  when  used  in  prophecy,  literally,  he  will 
involve  himself  in  inextricable  difficulties. 

4.  As  utterly  at  variance  with  Archbishop  Gibbons' 
doctrine,  we  would  commend  to  his  attention  such  facts  as 
these :  (1)  God  instituted  the  marriage  relation,  and  he 
did  it  becciuse  he  saw  that  "  it  was  not  good  that  man 
should  be  alone,"  and  this,  while  man  was  yet  unfallen  ; 
yet  retained  that  image  of  God  in  which  he  was  created. 
(2)  Paul,  speaking  by  inspiration  of  God,  declares  that" 
"marriage  is  honorable  in  all;"  (Heb.  xiii.  4);  and  writ- 
ing to  Timothy  says — "  I  will  therefore  that  the  younger 
women  marry,  bear  children,  guide  the  house,  give  none 
occasion  to  the  adversary  to  speak  reproachfully."  (1 
Tim.  V.  14.)  (3)  That  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  in 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  is  used  more  fre- 
quently than  any  other  to  set  forth  the  blessed,  holy 
relation  of  Christ  and  his  Church,  as  in  Eph.  v.  24-31, 
and  (4),  That  ''  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the 
latter  times  some  shall  depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed 
to  seducing  spirits,  and  doctrines  of  devils  ....  forbid- 
ding to  marry."  (1  Tim.  iv.  1,  3.) 

§  106.  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy. 

"  Canon  IX.  If  any  one  saith,  that  clerics  constituted 
"  in  sacred  orders,  or  regulars,  who  have  solemnly  pro- 
"  fessed  chastity,  are  able  to- contract  marriage,  and  that 
"being  contracted  it  is  valid,  notwithstanding  the  eccle- 
"  siastical  law,  or  vow ;  and  that  the  contrary  is  nothing 
"  else  than  to  condemn  marriage  ;  and  that  all  who  do  not 
"  feel  that  they  have  the  gift  of  chastity,  even  though 
*'  they  have  made  a  vow  thereof,  may  contract  marriage  ; 
"  let  him  be  anathema ;  seeing  that  God  refuses  not  that 
"  gift  to  those  who  ask  for  it  rightly,  neither  does  he 
"  suffer  us  to  be  tempted  above  that  which  we  are  able." 
(1  Cor.  X.  13.)    {Council  of  Trent,  Session  xxiv.). 

Archbishop  Gibbons  writes  :  "  The  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles assures  us  that  he  led  a  single  life,  and  he  commends 
that  state  to  others ;  '  I  say  to  the  unmarried,  and  to  the 


236  The  DoGtrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

widows,  it  is  good  for  them,  if  tliey  so  continue,  even  as 
I."  (1  Cor.  vii.  8.) 

"  There  is  no  evidence  from  Scripture,  that  any  of  the 
Apostles  were  married  except  St.  Peter.  St.  Jerome  says 
that  if  any  were  married,  they  certainly  separated  from 
their  wives,  after  they  were  called  to  the  Apostolate. 
Even  St.  Peter  after  his  vocation,  did  not  continue  with 
his  wife,  as  may  be  inferred  from  his  own  words  :  '  Behold, 
we  have  left  all  things  and  followed  thee.'  Among  all 
things  must  be  reckoned  the  fellowship  of  his  wife ;  for  he 
could  hardly  say  with  truth  that  he  had  left  all  things,  if 
he  did  not  leave  his  wife.  And  our  Saviour,  immediately 
afterwards  enumerates  the  wife  among  those  cherished  ob- 
jects, the  renunciation  of  which,  will  have  its  reward." 
(Matt.  xix.  27,  29.) 

"  But  does  not  St.  Paul  authorize  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy  when  he  says :  '  Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about 
a  woman,  a  sister,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  ?'  (1 
Cor.  ix.  5.)  The  Protestant  text  mistranslates  this  pas- 
sage by  substituting  the  word  wife  for  woman.  It  is 
evident  that  St.  Paul  does  not  speak  here  of  his  wife,  since 
he  had  none :  but  he  alludes  to  those  pious  women  who 
voluntarily  waited  on  the  Apostles,  and  ministered  to  them 
in  their  missionary  journeys."  {Faith  of  our  Fathers, 
pp.  455,  461.) 

On  these  statements  we  remark : — 

1.  If  the  Apostle  does  commend  a  single  life  in  his 
words,  "  I  say  to  the  unmarried,  and  to  the  widows,  it  is 
good  for  them  that  they  continue,  even  as  I,"  (1  Cor.  vii. 
8,)  he  expressly  declares,  (1)  That  it  is  only  advice  he 
is  giving,  not  an  obligatory  rule  of  life.  "  Now  concern- 
ing virgins,  (parthenoi,  is  used  of  both  sexes, — Hodge) 
I  have  no  commandment  from  the  Lord ;  yet  I  give  my 
judgment,  as  one  that  hath  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord 
to  be  faithful ;"  and  (2)  That  this  advice  is  based  upon  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  times, — "  I  suppose  there- 
fore that  it  is  good  for  the  present  distress ;  I  say,  that  it 
is  good  for  a  man  so  to  be.  Art  thou  bound  unto  a  wife  ? 
seek  not  to  be  loosed.     Art  thou  loosed  from  a  wife?  seek 


Celibacy  of  the.  Clergy.  287 

not  a  wife.  But,  and  if  thou  marry,  thou  hast  not  sinned ; 
and  if  a  virgin  marry,  she  hath  not  sinned.  Nevertheless, 
such  shall  have  trouble  in  the  flesh,  but  I  spare  you."  (1 
Cor.  vii.  25,  28.) 

2.  Respecting  1  Cor.  ix.  5,  where  the  Archbishop  affirms 
that  "  the  Protestant  text  mistranslates  by  substituting 
the  word  wife  for  looman,"  we  admit  that  the  word  guna 
here  used,  is  used  in  both  senses  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  Ch.  vii.,  where  Paul  is  treating  of  marriage,  it  occurs 
twenty-one  times,  and  in  the  Douay  Bible,  as  well  as  in  the 
Authorized  Version,  it  is  rendered  nineteen  times  wife, 
and  twice  only  woman.  It  is  the  common  word  for  wife 
in  the  New  Testament.  On  the  passage  under  examina- 
tion, Alford  remarks — "  Have  we  not  the  power  to  bring 
about  with  us  (also  to  be  maintained  at  the  cost  of  the 
churches,  for  this,  and  not  the  power  to  marry,  is  the  mat- 
ter in  question)  as  a  wife,  a  believing  sister,  or  to  bring 
with  us  a  believing  wife ;  these  are  the  only  renderings  of 
which  the  words  are  legitimately  capable,"  {Alford' s  New 
Testament) ; — and  Bloomfield — "  The  best  modern  com- 
mentators are,  with  reason,  agreed  that  adclphane  gunaika 
means  a  sister-wife,  i.  e.,  a,  wife  who  shall  be  a  sister, 
Christian,  as  in  vii.  15,  or  rather,  '  a  sister  who  shall  be 
our  wife.'  Such  is  nearly  the  view  of  the  sense  taken  by 
Chrysostom.  The  chief  reason  for  the  Apostles  being 
allowed  this  privilege  was,  not  so  much  that  those  females 
might  minister  to  their  domestic  comfort;  as  that  they 
might  be  instrumental  to  the  conversion,  or  religious  in- 
struction of  females,  especially  the  unmarried."  (Bloom- 
field's  Greek  Testament.) 

That  Peter  was  married,  at  the  time  of  his  call  to  the 
Apostolate,  is  placed  beyond  all  question  by  the  record — 
"  And  when  Jesus  was  come  into  Peter's  house,  he  saw  his 
wife's  mother  laid,  and  sick  of  a  fever."  (Matt.  viii.  14, 
also  Mark  i.  30.)  That  he  was  "  leading  about  a  wife  "  at 
the  time  Paul  wrote  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
is  also  unquestionable  from  1  Cor.  ix.  5.  And  this  was 
some  thirty  years  after  "  he  had  forsaken  all "  to  follow 
Christ : — so,  that  if,  as  the  Archbishop  thinks,  in  "  forsak- 
ing all "  to  foUow  Christ,  is  included  forsaking  the  wife 


283  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

mentioned  in  Matt.  viii.  14,  he  must  have  married  a 
second  time  in  the  course  of  these  thirty  years, 

4.  "  There  is  no  evidence  from  Scripture,  that  any  of 
the  Apostles  were  married  except  St.  Peter,"  writes  the 
Archbishop.  What  then  does  Paul  mean  when  he  writes 
— "  Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about  a  sister,  a  wife,  as 
well  as  other  Apostles,  and  as  the  brethren  of  the  Lord, 
and  Cephas?"  From  these  words  it  is  evident,  upon  any 
fair  construction — not  that  all  the  Apostles  were  married 
— but  that  in  their  case,  marriage  was  the  rule,  and  not 
the  exception ;  and  further,  Paul  appeals  to  it  as  a  thing 
well-known,  and  a  thing  the  propriety  of  which  none,  in 
that  day,  would  question.  In  opposition  to  this  unequivo- 
cal testimony  of  a  cotemporary,  the  Archbishop  would  have 
us  believe  a  tradition,  first  reduced  to  writing  by  Jerome, 
who  wrote  during  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century. 

"  The  Apostle  seems  to  require  that  a  bishop  be  '  the 
husband  of  one  wife.'  (1  Tim.  iii.  2.)  This  text  certainly 
cannot  mean  that  a  bishop  must  be  a  married  man,  for 
the  reason  already  given,  that  Paul  himself  was  never 
married.  The  sense  of  the  text,  as  all  tradition  testifies, 
is  that  no  candidate  should  be  elected  to  the  office  of 
Bishop  who  had  been  married  more  than  once.  It  was 
not  possible  in  those  days  always  to  select  single  men  for 
the  Episcopal  office.  Hence  the  Church  was  often  com- 
pelled to  choose  married  persons'  but  always  with  this 
restriction,  that  they  had  never  contracted  nuptials  a 
second  time.  They  were  obliged,  moreover,  if  not  widow- 
ers, to  live  separated  from  their  wives."  {Faith  of  our 
Fathers,  pp.  461,  462.) 

The  passage  in  1  Tim.,  referred  to  above,  is — "  A  bishop 
then  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  .  .  .  one 
that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his  children  in 
subjection  with  all  gravity;  (for  if  a  man  know  not  how 
to  rule  his  own  house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the 
Church  of  God?")  (1  Tim.  iii.  2-5.)  Of  similar  import  is 
Paul's  instruction  to  Titus, — "If  any  be  blameless,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful  children  not  accused 
of  riot,  or  unruly ;  for  a  bishop  must  be  blamclesSj  as  the 
steward  of  God."  (Titus  i.  6,  7.) 


Celibacy  of  the  Clergy.  289 

1.  The  instructions  respecting  the  quaUfications  of 
bishops  and  deacons,  in  these  Piistoral  Epistles,  have  al- 
ways been  regarded  by  Romanists,  as  well  as  Protestants, 
of  abiding  authority  in  the  Church ; — and  if  so,  the  re- 
quirement that  "  a  bishop  must  be  the  husband  of  one 
wife,"  whatever  may  be  its  meaning,  cannot  be  regarded 
as-  a  temporary  expedient,  to  be  tolerated  in  the  first 
organization  of  the  Church,  but  to  be  discontinued  ever 
after. 

2.  If,  as  the  Archbishop  says,  these  married  bishops 
"  were  obliged,  if  not  widowers,  to  live  separate  from  their 
wives,"  what  does  the  Apostle  mean  by  requiring  that 
"  they  shall  rule  their  own  houses  well,  having  their  chil- 
dren in  subjection  with  all  gravity  ?  "  Methinks,  had  Dr. 
Gibbons  had  any  practical  knowledge  of  "  ruling  well  a 
household  of  children,"  he  would  not  have  made  such  a 
suggestion  as  this. 

3.  Of  the  phrase  "  the  husband  of  one  wife,"  two 
interpretations  have  been  given.  (1)  That  of  Archbishop 
Gibbons,  that  it  is  a  prohibition  of  a  second  marriage. 
This  is  the  accepted  interpretation  of  the  Greek  Church 
at  the  present  day.  The  objection  to  it  is  that  a  second 
marriage  is  certainly  not  unlawful  in  the  Christian  Church. 
In  certain  cases  it  is  enjoined  (see  1  Tim.  v.  11-14) ;  and 
it  is  expressly  permitted  to  Christians  in  Rom.  vii.  2,  3, 
and  1  Cor.  vii.  39.  If  allowable  to  other  Christians,  we 
can  see  no  reason  why  it  should  be  prohibited  to  bishops. 
(2)  That  it  is  polygamy  which  is  here  prohibited ;  a  bishop 
must  be  the  husband  of  07ie  wife,  and  one  only.  Alford 
declares  that  "  the  earlier  commentators  were  unanimous 
in  this  view.  Chrysostom  is  the  only  one  who  proposes 
an  alternative."  {AlforrTs  New  Testament.) 

On  1  Tim.  iii.  2,  McKnight  has  this  note — "  Polygamy, 
being  an  offence  against  political  prudence  rather  than 
against  morality,  it  had  been  permitted  to  the  Jews  by 
Moses,  (Deut.  xxi.  15,)  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  their 
hearts,  and  was  generally  practiced  by  the  eastern  nations 
as  a  matter  of  indifference.  It  was,  therefore,  to  be  cor- 
rected mildly  and  gradually,  by  example  rather  than  by 
express  precept.  And,  seeing  that  reformation  must  begin 
lo 


200  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

somewhere,  it  was  certainly  fit  to  begin  with  the  ministers 
of  religion,  that,  through  the  influence  of  their  example, 
the  evil  might  be  remedied  by  disuse,  without  occasioning 
those  domestic  troubles  and  causeless  divorces,  which  must 
necessarily  have  ensued,  if  by  an  express  injunction  of 
the  Apostles,  husbands  immediately  on  their  becoming 
Christians,  had  been  obliged  to  put  away  all  their  wives 
except  one.  Accordingly,  the  example  of  the  clergy  and 
of  such  of  the  brethren  as  were  not  married  at  their  con- 
version, or  who  were  married  only  to  one  woman,  sup- 
ported by  the  precepts  of  the  gospel,  which  enjoined  tem- 
perance in  the  use  of  sensual  pleasure,  had  so  effectually 
rooted  out  polygamy  from  the  Church,  that  the  emperor 
Valentinian,  to  give  countenance  to  his  marrying  Justina, 
during  the  life  of  his  wife  Severa,  whom  he  would  not 
divorce,  published  a  law  permitting  his  subjects  to  have 
two  wives  at  a  time." 

§  107.  Iiieonsistenci/  of  Romish  doctrine. 

The  Council  of  Trent  declares  that  "  the  sacraments  of 
"  the  new  law  are  necessary  unto  salvation,"  and  that 
"  they  confer  grace  ex  opere  operate."  The  Catechism  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  defines  a  sacrament  as  "  a  sign  of  a 
"  sacred  thing,"  and  then,  in  exposition  of  these  words,  de- 
clares— "  divines  prove,  that  by  the  words  sacred  thing,  is 
"to  be  understood  the  grace  of  God,  which  sanctifies  the 
"  soul  and  adorns  it  with  every  virtue ;  and  of  this  grace 
"  they  consider  the  words  sacred  thing,  an  appropriate  ap- 
"  pellation,  because  by  its  salutary  infiuence  the  soul  is 
"  consecrated  and  united  to  God."  {Pp.  100,  102.) 

The  Council  of  Trent  further  declares,  "If  any  one 
"  saith,  that  matrimony  is  not  truly  and  properly  one  of 
"  the  seven  sacraments  of  the  evangelical  law,  (a  sacra- 
"  ment)  instituted  by  Christ  the  Lord  ...  let  him  be 
"  anathema  :  " — and  the  Catechism  of  that  Council  cites  in 
support  of  this  doctrine,  Eph.  v.  32,  "  This  is  a  great 
sacrament." 

And  then  adds — "  If  any  one  saith  that  the  marriage 
"  state  is  to  be  placed  above  the  state  of  virginity,  or  of 


Inconsistency  of  Romish  Doctrine.  291 

"  celibacy,  and  that  it  is  not  better  and  more  blessed  to 
"  remain  in  virginity,  or  in  celibacy,  than  to  be  united  in 
"  matrimony ;  let  him  be  anathema  ;  " — and  enacts,  that 
the  clergy,  of  whom  Paul  says,  they  should  be  "  examples 
to  believers,  in  word,  in  conversation,  in  charity,  in  spirit, 
in  laith,  in  purity,"  (1  Tim.  iv.  12,)  shall  be  held  "  unable 
to  contract  marriage." 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  strange  anomaly  of  "  a  true  and 
proper  sacrament,"  i.  e.,  a  rite  which  confers,  ex  opere 
operate,  "  the  grace  of  God  which  sanctifies  the  soul  and' 
adorns  it  with  every  virtue,"  and  yet,  a  man  is  "  better 
and  more  blessed  "  if  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  it : — "  a 
great  sacrament "  which  the  clergy,  who  are  to  be  "  an 
example  to  believers  in  conversation  (i.  e.,  conduct,)  are  by 
special  enactment  utterly  and  forever  debarred  from  par- 
ticipating in.  And  the  question  will  come  up — If  a  man 
is  "  better  and  more  blessed  "  for  having  nothing  to  do 
with  one  of  the  sacraments,  will  he  not  be  yet  better,  and 
more  blessed  still,  if  he  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  the 
seven  ? 


292  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 


CHAPTEK  IV. 

EXTEEME  UNCTION. 
JlOS.  Extreme  Unction  defined.    §109.  James  v.  14-18. 

§  108.  Extreme  Unction  Defined. 

"  It  hath  also  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Synod,  to  subjoin 
"  to  the  preceding  doctrine  of  Penance,  the  following  on 
"  the  Sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction,  which  by  the  Fathers 
"  was  regarded  as  being  the  completion  not  only  of  penance, 
"but  also  of  the  whole  Christian  life,  which  ought  to  be  a 
"  perpetual  penance.  First  therefore,  as  regards  its  insti- 
"  tution,  it  declares  and  teaches,  that  our  most  gracious 
"  Redeemer,  who  would  have  his  servants  at  all  times  pro- 
"  vided  with  salutary  remedies  against  all  the  weapons  of 
"  all  their  enemies, — as,  in  the  other  sacraments,  he  pre- 
"  pares  the  greatest  aids,  whereby,  during  life.  Christians 
"  may  preserve  themselves  whole  from  every  more  grievous 
"  spiritual  evil,  so  did  he  guard  the  close  of  life  by  the  sac- 
"  rament  of  Extreme  Unction,  as  with  a  most  firm  defense. 
"  For  though  our  adversary  seeks  and  seizes  opportunity, 
"  all  our  life  long,  to  be  able  in  any  way  to  devour  (1  Pet. 
"  V.  8,)  our  souls ;  yet  is  there  no  time  wherein  he  strains 
"  more  vehemently  all  the  powers  of  his  craft  to  ruin  us 
"  utterly,  and  if  he  can  possibly,  to  make  us  fall  even 
"  from  trust  in  the  mercy  of  God,  than  when  he  perceives 
"  the  end  of  our  life  to  be  at  hand." 

"  Canon  I.  "  If  any  one  saith  that  Extreme  Unction  is  not 
"  truly  and  properly  a  sacrament,  instituted  by  Christ  our 
"  Lord,  and  promulgated  by  the  blessed  Apostle  James ; 
"  but  is  only  a  rite  received  from  the  Fathers,  or  a  human 
"  figment :  let  him  be  anathema." 


James  V.  14-18.  293 

"  Canon  II.  If  any  ono  saitli  that  tlie  sacred  unction 
"  of  the  sick  does  not  confer  grace,  nor  remit  sin,  nor  com- 
"  fort  the  sick ;  but  that  it  has  ah'eady  ceased,  as  though 
"  it  were  of  old  only  the  grace  of  working  cures ;  let  him  be 
"  anathema." 

"  Canon  IV.  If  any  one  saith  that  the  Presbyters  of  the 
"  Church,  whom  blessed  James  exhorts  be  brought  to  anoint 
"  the  sick,  are  not  the  priests  who  have  been  ordained  by 
"  a  bishop,  but  the  elders  in  each  community,  and  that  for 
"■  this  cause  a  priest  alone  is  not  the  proper  minister  of  Ex- 
"treme  Unction  :  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent, 
iSesdon  xiv.) 

"  It  is  sad  to  think  that  our  separated  brethren  discard 
this  consoling  instrument  of  grace,  though  pressed  upon 
them  by  an  i\.postle  of  Jesus  Christ ;  for  surely  a  spiritual 
medicine  which  diminishes  the  terrors  of  death,  comforts 
the  dying  Christian,  fortifies  the  soul  in  its  final  struggle, 
and  purifies  it  for  its  passage  from  time  to  eternity,  should 
be  gratefully  and  eagerly  availed  of,  especially  when  pre- 
scribed by  an  inspired  Physician."  {Faith  of  our  Fathers, 
p.  440.) 

We  ask  the  reader  to  notice, — That  the  Sacrament  of 
Extreme  Unction,  as  its  name  implies,  is  designed  "  to 
guard  the  close  of  life  with  a  most  firm  defense ;  "  to  "  for- 
tify the  soul  in  its  final  struggle,"  and  that  it  is  not  de- 
signed nor  does  it  operate  to  restore  the  sick  to  health 
again.  Hence  the  "  form  "  of  the  Sacrament  is,  "  By  this 
"  Holy  Unction,  and  through  his  great  mercy,  may  God 
"  indulge  thee  whatever  sins  thou  hast  committed,  by  sight, 
"  smell,  touch,  etc.,  etc."  (Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  p.  207.) 

§  109.  James  v.  14-18. 

"  Is  any  sick  among  you  ?  let  him  call  for  the  elders  of 
the  Church ;  and  let  them  pray  oyer  him,  anointing  him 
with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  the  prayer  of 
faith  shall  save  the  sick,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up; 
and  if  he  have  committed  sin's,  they  shall  be  forgiven  him. 
Confess  your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  an- 


291  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

other,  that  ye  may  be  healed.  The  effectual,  fervent 
prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much.  Elias  was  a 
man  subject  to  like  passions  as  we  are,  and  he  prayed 
earnestly  that  it  might  not  rain :  and  it  rained  not  on  the 
earth  by  the  space  of  three  years  and  six  months.  And 
he  prayed  again,  and  the  heavens  gave  rain,  and  the  earth 
brought  forth  her  fi'uit." 

In  attempting  an  exposition  of  this  passage,  we  would 
ask  the  reader  to  remark : — 

1.  The  word  in  ver,  14,  translated  Elders  in  the  Author- 
ized Version, — Priests  in  the  Douay  Bible,  is  in  the  ori- 
ginal Greek  presbuterous,  and  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  jores- 
byteros,  words  which  nevp.r  mean  Priest  in  the  Eomish 
sense  of  that  term ;  but  always  elders,  in  the  sense  of  either 
old  men,  or  a  class  of  officers  existing  first  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  and  afterwards  in  the  Christian.  For  a  full  exami- 
nation of  this  point  see  §  73. 

2.  That  the  object  in  view  in  "  calling  for  the  Elders  of 
the  Church,"  as  it  is  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  passage  is; 
— not  "  to  guard  the  close  of  life  with  a  most  firm  defense," 
— "  to  fortify  the  soul  in  its  final  struggle," — to  prepare 
the  sick  man  for  death, — but  to  "raise  him  up"  from  his 
bed  of  sickness,  "  to  heal  him,"  to  secure  his  restoration 
to  health  again. 

For  these  two  reasons,  we  reject  the  Eomish  interpre- 
tation of  the  passage.  Neither  the  end  proposed,  nor  the 
minister,  are  those  of  Extreme  Unction. 

To  prepare  the  way  for  a  correct  interpretation  we  ask 
the  reader's  attention  to  the  following  unquestionable 
facts : — 

1.  The  miraculous  power  of  healing  the  sick  was  one 
among  the  charismata  conferred  upon  the  xipostles,  and 
others  in  the  Apostles'  days.  For  proof  of  this  take  such 
passages  as  the  following : — "  To  another  the  gifts  of  heal- 
ing by  the  same  Spirit."  (1  Cor.  xii.  9.)  "  And  by  the 
hands  of  the  Apostles  -yvere  many  signs  and  wonders 
wrought  among  the  people  .  .  .  insomuch  that  they 
brought  forth  the  sick  into  the  streets,  and  laid  them  on 
beds  and  couches,  that  at  least' the  shadow  of  Peter  passing 
by  might  overshadow  some  of  them."  (Acts  v.  12,  15.) 


James  V.  14-18.  295 

"  And  there  lie  found  a  certain  man  named  Eneas,  which 
had  kept  his  bed  eight  years,  and  was  sick  of  the  palsy. 
And  Peter  said  unto  him,  Eneas,  Jesus  Christ  maketh  thee 
whole:  arise  and  make  thy  bed.  And  he  arose  immedi- 
ately." (Acts  ix.  33,  3-1.)  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  the 
father  of  Publius  lay  sick  of  a  fever  and  of  a  bloody-fiux; 
to  whom  Paul  entered  in,  and  prayed,  and  laid  his  hands 
on  him,  and  healed  him."  (Acts  xxviii.  8.) 

2.  The  accomplishment  of  these  miraculous  cures  was 
sometimes — not  always — accompanied  by  some  significant 
act  on  the  part  of  the  miracle  worker ;  as  in  the  case,  cited 
above,  of  Publius'  father,  we  are  told  that  Paul  "  laid  his 
hands  on  him,  and  healed  him."  When  Peter  healed  the 
lame  man  at  the  gate  of  the  temple  we  read — "  And  he 
took  him  by  the  right  hand,  and  lifted  him  up :  and  im- 
mediately his  feet  and  ankle-bones  received  strength." 
(Acts  iii.  7.)  Of  the  cures  wrought  by  the  twelve,  shortly 
after  their  first  commission, — "  And  they  cast  out  many 
devils,  and  anointed  with  oil  many  that  were  sick,  and 
healed  them."  (Mark  vi.  13.)  In  this  last  cited  case,  "  the 
significant  act "  is  the  same  mentioned  in  the  passage  under 
examination. 

3.  Sometimes,  if  not  always,  these  miraculous  cures 
were  wrought  in  answer  to  prayer,  the  prayer  of  faith. 
When  Paul  healed  Publius'  father,  he  "  entered  in,  and 
prayed,  and  laid  his  hands  on  him,  and  healed  him."  (Acts 
xxviii.  8.)  When  Peter  raised  Tabitha  to  life  again,  we 
read — "  But  Peter  put  them  all  forth,  and  kneeled  down, 
and  prayed;  and  turning  him  to  the  body  said,  Tabitha, 
arise.  And  she  opened  her  eyes ;  and  when  she  saw  Peter, 
she  sat  up."  (Acts  ix,  40.)  Christ's  parting  words  to  his 
disciples  furnish  a  proper  foundation  for  the  prayer  of 
faith  in  this  case — "  And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that 
believe  ;  In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils  ;  they  shall 
speak  with  new  tongues  ;  they  shall  take  up  serpents ;  and 
if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them ; 
they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover." 
(Mark  xvi.  17,  18.)  The  faith  which  characterizes  the 
effectual  prayer  of  the  righteous  man,  is  not  simply  an  un- 
reasoning persuasion  that  the  thing  prayed  for  shall  be 


296  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Sapper. 

granted: — but  a  rational,  firm  belief  of  God's  word  of 
promise,  and  for  such  prayer,  the  above  cited  promise  of 
our  Lord  furnished  a  proper  foundation,  at  the  time  James 
wrote, 

4.  Sickness,  and  death,  in  many  instances,  is  traced  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  directly  to  sin  as  its  cause.  "And,  . 
behold,  they  brought  to  him  a  man  sick  of  the  palsy,  lying 
on  a  bed :  and  Jesus  seeing  their  faith  said  unto  the  sick 
of  the  palsy ;  Son,  be  of  good  cheer ;  thy  sins  be  forgiven 
thee  .  .  .  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  (then  saith  he  to  the  sick 
of  the  palsy)  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house. 
And  he  arose,  and  departed  to  his  house."  (Matt.  ix.  2-7.) 
"  Afterwards  Jesus  findeth  him  {i.  e.  the  impotent  man 
whom  he  had  healed)  in  the  temple,  and  said  unto  him. 
Behold,  thou  art  made  whole;  sin  no  more,  lest  a  worse 
thing  come  upon  thee."  (Jno.  v.  14.)  "  For  he  thateateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation 
(judgment,  marginal)  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
body.  For  this  cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among 
you,  and  many  sleep."  (1  Cor.  xi.  29,  30.)  For  a  full  ex- 
position of  this  subject  see  §  55. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  we  venture  to  paraphrase  the 
passage  specially  in  question,  as  follows : — Is  any  sick 
among  you?  let  him  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church, 
(either  the  older  ones  among  the  members,  or,  as  we  think, 
the  Elders,  in  the  official  sense  of  the  word,  among  whom 
the  Apostles  were  included,  see  1  Pet.  v.  1,)  and  let  them 
pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  (as  this  was  the  significant  act  specially  appointed  by 
the  Lord  to  accompany  such  healing  of  the  sick.  See  Mark 
vi.  13.)  And  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick  (from 
threatened  death),  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up  (to 
health  again),  and  if  he  have  committed  sins  (which  have 
been  the  immediate  cause  of  his  sickness)  they  shall  be 
forgiven  him." 

As  thus  interpreted,  this  passage  has  an  especial  refer- 
ence to  a  state  of  things  which  existed  when  it  was  written, 
but  which  has  long  since  passed  away.  (See  §  55.)  Yet  it 
has  its  lesson  for  the  Church  in  every  age.     The  prayer  of 


James  v.  14-18.  297 

faitli,  though  it  can  no  longer  concern  itself  with  miracle- 
working,  yet  it  can  and  does  concern  itself  with  all  that 
belongs  to  God's  providence  in  the  world,  and  so  with 
bodily  sickness,  and  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  for  Jesus' 
sake: — and  it  is  just  as  proper  that  we  should  "confess  our 
faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another  "  now,  as 
it  was  at  the  time  James  wrote  his  Epistle. 


13* 


298  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper, 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   SACRAMENT  OF   ORDERS. 

2 no.  The  Sacrament  of  Orders  defined,     gill.   Matt.  xvi.  19  and  xviii.  15-19. 
gll2.  1  Tim.  ir.  14,  and  2  Tim.  1.6. 

§  110,  The  Sacrament  of  Orders  Defined. 

"  Canon  III,  If  any  one  saith,  that  order,  or  sacred  or- 
"  dination,  is  not  truly  and  properly  a  sacrament  institu- 
"  ted  by  Christ  the  Lord  ;  or  that  it  is  a  kind  of  human 
"  figment  devised  by  men  unskilled  in  ecclesiastical  mat- 
"  ters ;  or,  that  it  is  only  a  kind  of  rite  for  choosing 
"  ministers  of  the  Word  of  God  and  of  the  sacraments ; 
"  let  him  be  anathema." 

"  Canon  IV.  If  any  one  saith,  that  by  sacred  ordination, 
"  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  given ;  and  that  vainly  therefore  do 
"  the  bishops  say,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;  or  that  a 
"  character  is  not  imprinted  by  that  ordination ;  or  that 
"  he  who  has  once  been  a  priest  can  again  become  a  lay- 
"man;  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent,  Session 
xxiii.) 

"  The  power  conferred  by  Almighty  God  on  his  Church 
"and  her  ministers  is  two-fold,  of  jurisdiction,  and  of 
"  orders.  The  pow;er  of  orders  has  reference  to  the  body 
"  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  holy  Eucharist ;  that  of 
"jurisdiction  to  his  mystical  body,  the  Church;  for  to  this 
"  latter  belong  the  government  of  his  spiritual  kingdom  on 
"  earth ;  and  the  direction  of  the  faithful  in  the  way  of  sal- 
"  vation.  In  the  power  of  Orders  is  included  not  only 
"  that  of  consecrating  the  holy  Eucharist,  but  also  of  pre- 
"  paring  the  soul  for  its  worthy  reception,  and  whatever 
"else  has  reference  to  the  sacred  mysteries.  Of  this  the 
"  Scriptures  afford   numerous   attestations,  among   which 


The  Sacrament  of  Orders  Defined.  299 

"tlio  most  striking  and  weighty  are  contained  in  the 
"  words  recorded  by  St.  John  and  St.  Matthew  on  this 
"subject:  'As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,' says  the  Ke- 
"  deemer,  '  I  send  you  :  Eeceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;  whose 
*'  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them,  and  whose 
"  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained ; '  (Jno.  xx.  21-23,) 
"and  again,  *  Amen  I  say  unto  you,  whatever  you  shall 
"  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven  ;  and  what- 
"  ever  you  shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in 
"heaven."  (Matt,  xviii.  IS.)" 

"  The  office  of  the  Priest  is  then,  as  the  rites  used  at  his 
"  consecration  declare,  to  offer  sacrifice  to  God,  and  to  ad- 
" minister  the  sacraments  of  the  Church;  the  bishop,  and 
"after  him  the  priests  who  may  be  present,  impose  hands 
"  on  the  candidate  for  priesthood ;  then  placing  a  stole  on 
"his  shoulders,  he  adjusts  it  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  to  sig- 
"  nify  that  the  priest  receives  strength  from  above,  to  en- 
"  able  him  to  carry  the  cross  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  bear  the 
"sweet  yoke  of  his  divine  law,  and  to  enforce  this  law,  not 
"  by  word  only,  but  also  by  the  eloquent  example  of  a  holy 
"  life.  He  next  anoints  his  hands  with  sacred  oil.  reaches 
"  him  a  chalice  containing  wine,  and  a  patcna  with  bread, 
"  saying — '  Receive  po^oer  to  offer  sacrifice  to  God,  and  to 
"  celebrate  Mass  as  ivell  for  tJte  living  as  for  the  dead.'  By 
"  these  words  and  ceremonies  he  is  constituted  an  interpre- 
"  ter  and  mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  principal 
"  function  of  the  priesthood.  Finally,  placing  his  hands 
"  on  the  head  of  the  person  to  be  ordained,  the  bishop  says : 
'"  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost;  lohose  sins  you  shall  forgive, 
''  they  are  forgiven  them  :  and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain, 
"  they  are  retained;  "  thus  investing  him  with  that  divine 
"  power  of  forgiving  and  retaining  sins,  which  was  con- 
"ferred  by  our  Lord  on  his  disciples.  These  are  the 
"  principal  and  peculiar  functions  of  the  Priesthood." 
[Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  214,  221.) 

According  to  the  above-quoted  statements  of  doctrine  : — 

1.  Ordination  is  a  sacrament;  i.  e.,  it  confers  grace  "  ex 
opere  operato,  by  the  act  performed." 

2.  The  special  grace  conferred  in  this  sacrament,  is  the 
gift  of  the   Holy  Ghost,    through  the  possession  of  which 


300  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

the  Priest  is  enabled  to  discharge  the  supernatural  func- 
tions of  his  office,  such  as  effecting  the  transubstanti- 
ation  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Eucharist,  and  forgiv- 
ing and  retaining  sins,  in  the  sacrament  of  penance. 

3.  "  The  principal  and  peculiar  functions  of  the  priest- 
hood "  are, — "  to  offer  sacrifice  to  God,  and  to  celebrate 
Mass,"  and  "  to  forgive  and  retain  sins  "  in  the  sacrament 
of  penance.  Not  a  word  is  said  of  preaching  the  gos- 
pel in  the  ordination  service  of  the  Priest ;  and  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  declares — "  If  any  one  saith  ....  that  those 
"  who  do  not  preach  are  not  priests  at  all :  let  him  be 
''anathema."     {Council  of  Trent,  Canon  L,  Session xxm). 

Most  of  the  Scripture  authority  appealed  to  in  support 
of  those  points  of  doctrine  we  have  already  examined.  To 
a  few  passages  which  yet  remain  to  be  examined,  we  ask 
the  reader's  attention  in  the  present  chapter. 

§111.  Matthew  xvi.  19,  and  xviii.  15-19. 

"And  I  will  give  unto  thee  (Peter)  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth, 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose 
on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."    (Matt.  xvi.  19.) 

"  Moreover  if  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go 
and  tell  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone ;  if  he 
shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he 
will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more, 
that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may 
be  established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell 
it  unto  the  Church  ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church, 
let  him  bo  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican. 
Yerily  I  say  unto  5^oa,  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on 
earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven;  and  whatsoever  ye 
shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  m  heaven." 

On  these  passages  of  Scripture  we  remark  : — 

1.  "Whatever  authority  Christ's  words,  recorded  in 
Matt.  xvi.  19,  give  to  Peter ;  his  words  recorded  in  Matt, 
xviii.  18,  give  to  the  other  Apostles  also ;  for  the  words 
used  on  the  two  occasions  are  identical. 

2.  From  the  context  in  ]\Iatt.  xviii.  18,  it  is  plain  that 


Matthew  xvi.  19,  mid  xviii.  15-19.  301 

these  words  convey  to  the  Apostle,  authority  to  exercise 
discipline  in  the  Church : — and,  as  they  were  commissioned 
to  modify  and  perfect  the  order  of  the  Church,  and  were 
iitted  for  this  work  by  the  special  gift  of  the  Spirit,  there 
seems  to  be  fairly  included,  authority  to  declare  what 
things  are  lawful  and  what  unlawful;  and  so,  to  lay 
down  general  principles  of  discipline  and  order  for  the 
Church  in  all  coming  time.  This  authority  our  Lord's 
words  convey  when  interpreted  according  to  Jewish  usage  : 
— and  this  authority  the  Apostles  actually  exercised,  as 
in  Paul's  excommunication  of  Hymeneus  and  Alexander  ; 
(1  Tim.  i.  20,)  and  in  "  the  Apostles  and  elders  "  loosing  the 
Gentiles  from  the  observation  of  the  ceremonial  law.  (Acts 

XV.) 

3.  Our  Lord's  language  in  Matt.  xvi.  19,  "I  will  give 
unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  we  think, 
implies  something  more  than  has  been  already  stated.  In 
Luke  xi.  52,  our  Lord  speaks  of  "  the  key  of  knowledge ;  " 
and  in  Isaiah  xxii.  21,  22,  we  read — ''And  I  will  commit 
the  government  into  his  hands,  and  he  shall  be  a  father 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  house  of  Ju- 
dah.  And  the  key  of  the  house  of  David  will  I  lay  upon 
his  shoulder :  so  he  shall  open  and  none  shall  shut ;  and 
he  shall  shut  and  none  shall  open."  In  Jewish  usage,  as 
is  evident  from  these  passages,  the  key  was  a  symbol  of 
both  government  and  knowledge  : — so  that  we  think  Pool 
gives  a  fair  paraphrase  of  our  Lord's  words  in  the  follow- 
ing— "  Peter,  I  will  betrust  thee,  and  the  rest  of  my  Apos- 
tles, with  the  whole  administration  of  my  gospel ;  you 
shall  lay  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  ad- 
minister all  the  afiairs  of  it,  opening  the  truths  of  my  gos- 
pel to  the  world,  and  governing  those  who  shall  receive  the 
faith  of  the  gospel.  And  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on 
earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  {Fool's 
Annotations,  in  loo.) 

4.  Whilst  these  words,  as  well  as  Jno.  xx.  23,  have  a 
special  meaning,  in  which  they  apply  to  the  case  of  the 
Apostles  alone,  we  think;  they  teach  a  truth  respecting 
the  Church  in  every  age  : — viz,  that  her  doctrine  when  she 


302  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper. 

teaches  what  she  is  authorized  to  teach,  and  her  discipline 
when  it  is  that  which  is  prescribed  in  the  Word  of  God, 
tliough  it  take  immediate  effect  here  on  earth  alone,  yet 
shall  it  be  ratified  by  God  in  heaven : — so  that  this  "  is 
therefore,  a  terrible  text  to  those  who  are  justly  and  duly 
cut  off  from  the  communion  of  the  Church,  for  notorious 
and  scandalous  sins,  such  as  whoso  committeth  and  doth 
not  repent  of,  they  shall  never  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  as  comfortable  to  those  who,  being  so  cast  out, 
do  truly  repent,  and  are  under  temptations  to  be  swallow- 
ed up  of  too  much  sorrow."  {Fool's  Annotations,  in  loc.) 

§  112.  1  Timothy  iv.  14,  2  Timothy  i.  6. 

"  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery."  (1  Tim.  iv.  14.) 

"  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir 
up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of 
my  hands."  (2  Tim.  i.  6.) 

1,  In  both  of  these  passages  the  word  translated  "  gift" 
is  charisma.  On  the  nature  of  the  charismata  bestowed 
by  the  "  laying  on  of  an  Apostle's  hands,"  see  §  93.  In  the 
expression  "  stir  tvp  "  the  gift  of  God,  as  in  2  Thess.  v.  19, 
"  quench  not  the  Spirit,"  there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the 
miracle  recorded  in  Acts  ii.  when  the  Spirit  "appeared  as 
cloven  tongues  of  fire,  and  it  sat  on  each  of  them."  As 
this  charism  had  been  given  of  God  to  Timothy,  through 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  Paul,  that  it  might  serve  the 
purpose  of  a  divine  attestation  of  the  truth  he  preached, 
there  was  a  propriety  in  Paul's  exhortation,  now  that  he 
"  was  about  to  be  ofiered  up  and  the  time  of  his  departure 
was  at  hand  "  to'stir  up  (literally,  kindle  afresh)  this  gift 
which  had  been  bestowed  upon  him. 

2.  On  the  two  passages.  Dr.  Dabney  writes — "Let  us 
proceed,  now,  to  the  case  of  Timothy,  because  Prelatists 
suppose  that  here  we  have  the  clearest  instance  of  an 
ordination  conferring  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  let  us  see.  If 
these  references  are  only  to  Timothy's  ordination,  then  it 
was  a  presbyterial  ordination  ('  by  the  laying  on  of  the 


1  Timothy, iv.  14,  2  Timothj,i.  6.  303 

hands  of  the  Presbytery)  and  thus  the  prelatic  scheme  is 
ruined.  But  if  the  two  texts  do  not  describe  one  and  the 
same  transaction,  then  the  proof  is  gone  that  ordination  by 
prelates  imparted  the  Holy  Ghost  to  Timothy :  because,  if 
two  transactions  are  alluded  to,  the  Holy  Ghost  may  have 
been  imparted  by  the  other.  And  this  was,  doubtless, the 
case.  The  Presbytery  ordained  Timothy  to  the  ministry, 
the  Holy  Ghost  having  moved  some  prophetic  person  to 
advise  it,  as  in  the  case  of  Barnabas  and  Saul.  Acts  xiii.  2. 
But  the  Apostle,  (who  was  also  a  Presbyter,  see  1  Pet.  v. 
1,)  acting  by  his  Apostolic  power,  added  some  charisma  of 
*  signs,'  to  assist  his  beloved  '  son  in  the  ministry  '  in  con- 
vincing unbelievers.  This  is  our  solution :  its  truth  is 
evinced  by  its  perfect  correspondence  with  the  history  in 
Acts  xvi.  On  this  solution,  Timothy's  charisma  was  de- 
rived, not  from  his  ordination,  but  from  a  distinct  action. 
Let  the  Prelatist  reject  this,  and  he  inevitably  falls  back 
into  the  doctrine  of  presbyterial  ordination  abhorred  by 
him."  [Dahneys  Theology,  p.  756.) 


304  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supjper, 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE   EOMISH   SACRAMENTS. 

1 113.  The  term  Sacrament  defined.  §  114.  The  Seven  Sacraments.  §  115.  The 
Scheme  of  Salvation  through  the  Sacraments  a  failure,  its  advocates  being 
judges, 

§  113.    The  term  Sacrament  Defined. 

The  term  sacrament  is  not  properly  a  Scripture  term. 
It  never  occurs  in  the  Authorized  Version,  and  once  only 
in  the  Douay  Bible ;  Eph.  v.  32 ;  where  it  is  given  as  a 
translation  of  the  Greek  musterion,  (see  §  104) : — and  it  is 
not  used  in  the  Douay  Bible  to  translate  the  Greek  mus- 
terion, except  in  this  single  instance. 

As  a  theological  term  it  is  differently  defined  by  the 
standards  of  diiferent  churches. 

Romish  definition.  The  Council  of  Trent  gives  no 
formal  definition  of  a  sacrament.  The  nearest  approach 
to  a  definition  is  in  the  words  : — "  For  the  completion  of 
"  the  salutary  doctrine  on  Justification,  which  was  pro- 
"  mulgated  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers  in 
"  the  last  preceding  session,  it  hath  seemed  suitable  to 
"  treat  of  the  most  holy  sacraments  of  the  Church,  through 
"  which  all  true  justice  either  begins,  or  being  begun  is 
"  increased,  or  being  lost  is  repaired  :" — taken  in  connec- 
tion with  Can.  viii,  "  If  any  one  saith  that  by  the  said 
*'  sacraments  of  the  New  Law  grace  is  not  conferred  {ex 
"  opere  operate)  through  the  act  performed,  but  that  faith 
"  alone  in  the  divine  promise  sufiices  for  the  obtaining  of 
"grace;  let  him  be  anathema."  {Council  of  Trent,  Ses- 
sion VII.) 

In  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  we  read : — 
"Of  the  many  definitions,  each  of  them  sufficiently  appro- 
"  priate,  which  may  serve  to  explain  the  nature  of  a  sacra- 


The  term  Sacrament  Defined.  305 

'  ment  there  is  none  more  comprehensive,  none  more 
''per^^^^^^^^^  that  of  St.  Augustine:    a   definition 

■'  Sch  has  since  been  adopted  by  all  scholastic  writers  : 
.'  '  A  sacrament;  says  he, '  is  a  sign  ot  a  sacred  hmg  ... 
"With  regard  to  this  definition  divines  prove  that  by  the 
"  words 's'lcred  thing,'  is  to  be  understood  the  grace  of 
''  God  wh  cW^^  the  soul  and  adori.s  it  with  every 

''  ^rtie  ;  and  of  this  grace  they  consider  the  words  sacred 
''  hng;  an  appropriate  appellation,  because  by  its  salu- 
-  tarv  ntluence  the  soul  is  consecrated  and  united  to  God 
"in  order,  therefore,  to  explain  moi^  fully  the  nature  of 
"  a  sSiament  the  pastor  wdl  teach  that  it  is  a  thing  sub- 
'Me  t  toXe  Lses^  and,  possessing  by  divine  institution 
"it  once  the  power  of  signifying  sanctity  and  Just.ce,  and 
"  of  imparting  both  to  the  receiver,    (pp.  lUU,  iU^.j 

'^  ^distinctive  doctrine  of  the  Eomish  Church  on  th^ 
subiect  is  that  the  sacraments  contain  the  grace  which 
they  si-nify,  and  that  such  grace  is  conveyed  exopere 
omrat  That  is,  they  have  a  real  inherent  and  objective 
vC  which  renders'  them  effectual  -^  commun^atmg 
lavinc  benefits  to   those  who   receive   them.     {Hodges 

^&^'4^;^^''^' Sacraments  a. 
and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  immediately  instituted 
by  God  to  represent  Christ  and  his  benefits,  and  to  con- 
fiL  or  interest  in  him  :  as  also  to  put  a  visible  difference 
b ZeTn  Sr ta^t  belong  unto  thl  Church  and  the^r^^^^ 
of  the  world;  and  solemnly  to  engage  them  to  the  seivice 
of  God  in  Christ,  according  to  his  word.  {Westrmnster 
Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  XXVIL,  Art.  1.) 

'Srments  ordained  of  Christ  be  not  only  badges  or 
tokens  of  Christian  men's  profession,  but  rather  they  be 
certain  sure  witnesses,  and  effectual  signs  of  grace,  and  ot 
Golr^  will  toward  us,  by  which  he  doth  work  invisi- 
bly in  us  and  doth  not  onlyVicken  but  also  stre^^^^^^^^ 
ami  confirm  our  Faith   in  him."     {Articles  of  Religion. 

^'"'ilJL  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Chnst  died 
for  thee,  and  feed  on  him  in  thy  heart  by  faith,  with 
thanksgiving."  "  The  Order  of  Communion. 


306  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

"Protestants  believe  that  the  sacraments,  under  proper 
circumstances,  are  not  a  hollow  shell,  devoid  of  gracious 
efficacy.  Nor  is  their  use  that  of  a  mere  badge.  But 
they  are  not  the  channels  or  vehicles  for  acquiring  the 
saving  grace  first;  inasmuch  as  the  possession  of  those 
graces  is  a  necessary  prerequisite  to  proper  participation 
in  adults.  The  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  therefore,  is  in 
no  case  more  than  to  strengthen  and  nourish  saving  grace. 
And  that  efficacy  they  carry  only  as  moral  means  of 
spiritual  influences ;  so  that  the  whole  benefit  depends  on 
an  intelligent,  believing  and  penitent  reception.  And 
every  believer  has  the  graces  of  redemption  in  such  degree 
as  to  save  his  soul,  if  a  true  believer,  whether  he  has  any 
sacraments  or  not."  [Dahneys   Theology^  p.  740.) 

In  view  of  this  difi'erence  in  meaning  of  the  word  sacra- 
ment, the  question,  often  discussed  with  great  earnestness, 
are  confirmation,  penance,  matrimony,  extreme  unction, 
and  orders,  sacraments,  is  a  question  of  very  little  practi- 
cal importance.  If  we  adopt  the  Romish  belief  respecting 
their  operation,  and  the  Eomish  definition  of  the  word 
sacrament,  they  may  be  called  sacraments :  — But  if  we 
adopt  the  Protestant  belief  respecting  their  operation,  and 
the  Protestant  definition  of  the  term,  they  certainly  are 
not  sacraments, — but  they  are  rites,  "  such  as  have  grown 
partly  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  Apostles,  partly  are 
states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures."  {Articles  of  Reli- 
gion. Art.  XXV.) 

§  114.    The  Seven  Sacraments. 

"  The  sacraments  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  seven,  as 
"  is  proved  from  Scripture,  from  the  unbroken  tradition 
"  of  the  Fathers,  and  from  the  authoritative  definitions  of 
"  Councils.  Why  they  are  neither  more  nor  less,  may 
''  be  shown,  at  least  with  some  degree  of  probability,  even 
"  from  the  analogy  that  exists  between  natural  and 
"  spiritual  life.  In  order  to  exist,  to  preserve  existence, 
"  and  to  contribute  to  his  own  and  to  the  public  good, 
"  seven  things  seem  necessary  to  man — to  be  born — to 
'*  grow — to  be  nurtured — to  be  cured  when  sick — when 


The  Scheme  of  Salvation  through  the  Sacraments.    307 

"  weak  to  bo  strengthened — as  far  as  regards  the  pul^Hc 
"  weal,  to  have  magistrates  invested  with  authority 
"  to  govern — and  finally,  to  perpetuate  himself  and  his 
"  species  by  legitimate  oflFspring.  Analogous  then  as  all 
"  tiiese  things  obviously  arc,  to  that  life  by  which  the 
"  soul  lives  to  God,  we  discover  in  them  a  reason  to  ac- 
"  count  for  the  number  of  the  sacraments.  Among  them, 
"  the  first  is  Baptism,  the  gate,  as  it  were,  to  all  the  otlier 
"  sacraments,  by  which  we  are  born  again  to  Christ.  The 
"  next  is  Confirmation,  by  which  we  grow  up,  and  are 
"  strengthened  in  the  grace  of  God  :  for  as  St.  Augustine 
"  observes,  to  the  Apostles  who  have  already  received 
"  baptism,  the  Redeemer  said :  '  Stay  you  in  the  city 
"  till  you  be  indued  with  power  from  on  high.'  '  The 
"  third  is  the  Eucharist,  that  true  bread  from  heaven 
"  which  nourishes  our  souls  to  eternal  life,  according  to 
"  these  words  of  the  Saviour,  '  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed, 
"  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.'  The  fourth  is  Penance, 
"  by  which  the  soul,  which  has  caught  the  contagion  of 
"  sin,  is  restored  to  spiritual  health.  The  fifth  is  Ex- 
"  treme  Unction,  which  obliterates  the  traces  of  sin,  and 
"  invigorates  the  powers  of  the  soul ;  of  which  St.  James 
" says  :  'if  he  be  in  sins,  they  shall  be  forgiven  him.' 
"  The  sixth  is  Holy  Orders,  which  gives  power  to  per- 
"  petuate  in  the  Church  the  public  administration  of  the 
"  sacraments,  and  the  exercise  of  all  the  sacred  functions 
"  of  the  ministry.  The  seventh,  and  last  is  Matrimony, 
"  a  sacrament  instituted  for  the  legitimate  and  holy  union 
"  of  man  and  woman,  for  the  conservation  of  the  human 
"  race,  and  the  education  of  children  in  the  knowledge 
"of  religion,  and  the  love  and  fear  of  God."  {Catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  106,  107.) 

§  115.  The  scheme  of  Salvation  throvgh  the  Sacraments  a 
failure, — its  advocates  being  judges. 
Protestants  teach  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  grace 
through  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  the  sacraments, 
like  the  Word  being  simply  means  of  grace  whereby  the 
Spirit  applies  a  purchased  redemption  to  the  soul  of  the 
sinner. 


308  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Churcli  of  Eome,  on  the  other  hand,  teaches  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  through  the  sacraments,  administered 
by  a  human  priest,  "  holding  the  place,  and  power,  and 
authority  of  God  on  earth,"  through  the  operation  of 
which  sacraments  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ  is 
applied  to  the  soul  of  the  sinner. 

That  the  reader  may  be  satisfied  that  the  above  is  a  fair 
representation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  let 
him  consider  the  declaration  of  the  Council  of  Trent, — 
"  Through  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  all  true  justice 
either  begins,  or  being  begun,  is  increased,  or  being  lost, 
is  repaired." — And  the  following  words  from  the  Catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent — "The  power  with  which  the 
"  Christian  priesthood  is  clothed,  is  a  heavenly  power, 
"  raised  above  that  of  angels ;  it  has  its  source  not  in  the 
"  Levitical  priesthood,  but  in  Christ  the  Lord,  who  was  a 
"  priest  not  according  to  Aaron,  but  according  to  the  order 
"  of  Melchisedek.  He  it  is  who,  endowed  with  supreme 
"  authority  to  grant  pardon  and  grace,  has  bequeathed 
"  this  power  to  his  Church,  a  power  limited,  however, 
"in  its  extent,  and  attached  to  the  sacraments.''  (P. 
215.) 

These  two  schemes  of  salvation  are  irreconcilable  the 
one  with  the  other.  If  one  is  true,  the  other  must  be 
false.  If  one  is  the  gospel  the  Apostles  preached,  the 
other  is  another  gospel,  and  Paul  says,  "  though  we,  or  an 
angel  from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than 
that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  ac- 
cursed." (Gal.  i.  8.) 

The  claims  of  this  doctrine  of  salvation  through  the 
sacraments  to  be  received  as  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  we 
have  now  examined  in  detail ;  in  this  examination  omit- 
ting, intentionally,  no  passage  of  Scripture  which  has  been 
quoted  in  its  support ; — and  we  do  not  now  purpose  at- 
tempting a  summary  of  the  results  of  this  examination ; 
— but  before  closing  the  discussion,  and  whilst  the  whole 
subject  is  fresh  in  the  reader's  mind,  we  would  ask  his  at- 
tention to  the  fact,  that  this  doctrine  cannot  be  carried 
out  consistently  even  by  its  advocates ;  that  when  they 
attempt  to  apply  it,  practically,  to  the  necessities  of  man's 


The  Scheme  of  Salvation  through  the  Sacrament-^.    309 

life,  it  breaks  down  in  their  own  hands.     As  instances  in 
point,  let  the  reader  take  the  following : 

1,  According  to  Eomish  doctrine,  regeneration,  that 
new  birth,  without  which  none  can  enter  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  is  effected  by  baptism.  The  priest  is  enabled  to 
effect  it  in  this  way  because  of  the  peculiar  miracle-work- 
ing charism  he  received  in  his  ordination,  "  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  as  it  is  called.  But,  in  many  an  instance,  a 
child  is  born  to  pious  parents,  and  dies,  in  circumstances 
in  which  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  receive  baptism  at 
the  hands  of  the  priest.  The  soul  of  the  stricken  parent 
would  revolt  at  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration 
(sacramental  salvation)  if  it  were  consistently  carried  out 
here,  and  he  were  told — your  dead  darling  is  damned ; — 
and  so  Kome  is  constrained  to  modify  her  doctrine ;  and 
admit  that  the  saving  sacrament  of  baptism  can  be  admin- 
istered by  even  a  mid-wife,  who  neither  has,  nor  pretends 
to  have  received  any  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  enable  her 
to  act  "  in  the  place,  and  with  the  power  and  authority  of 
God  on  earth;  "  and  so,  this  super-angelic  power  of  the 
priest  amounts  to  nothing,  after  all. 

2.  In  the  doctrine  of  Penance,  sacramental  Confession  is 
declared  to  be  necessary  to  Absolution : — and  that  it  must 
be  particular,  not  only  as  to  the  facts,  but  as  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  sins  confessed :  and  the  reason  given  for  this 
is,  that  in  granting  absolution  the  priest  acts  judicially,  and 
so  must  fully  understand  the  case  upon  which  he  is  to  pro- 
nounce judgment.  All  this  seems  very  fair.  But  some- 
times a  good  man  will  find  himself  in  the  case  of  David, 
who  when  he  came  to  confession  ( — not  to  a  priest,  but  to 
God,)  was  constrained  to  say — "mine  iniquities  have  taken 
hold  upon  me,  so  that  I  am  not  able  to  look  up ;  they  are 
more  than  the  hairs  of  my  head;  therefore  my  heart  faileth 
me."  (Ps.  xl.  12.)  In  such  a  case  a  minute  and  particular 
confession  of  all  his  sins  is  impossible;  many  must  be  over- 
looked ;  many,  even  forgotten : — and  if  we  attempt  to  carry 
out  consistently  the  idea  that  absolution  is  a  judicial  act, 
these  overlooked  or  forgotten  sins,  are  not  reached  by  that 
absolution,  and  so  the  penitent's  confession  may  be  all  in 
vain.     The  Council  of  Trent  felt  itself  obliged  to  provide 


310  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Swpper. 

for  such  cases  as  these,  and  hence  declares — "it  is  impious 
"  to  assert,  that  confession,  enjoined  to  be  made  in  this 
"manner,  is  impossible,  or  to  call  it  a  slaughter-house  of 
"conscience;  for  it  is  certain,  that  in  the  Church  nothing 
"  else  is  required  of  penitents,  but  that,  after  each  has  ex- 
"amined  himself  diligently,  and  searched  all  the  folds  and 
"  recesses  of  his  conscience,  he  confess  those  sins  by  which 
"  he  shall  remember  that  he  has  mortally  offended  his  Lord 
"and  God:  whilst  the  other  sins,  which  do  not  occur  to 
"  him  after  diligent  thought,  are  understood  to  be  included 
"  as  a  whole  in  that  same  confession."  [Council  of  Trent, 
ch.  V.  Session  xiv.)  Here  then  are  mortal  sins,  forgotten 
by  the  penitent  at  the  time  of  his  confession,  which  are 
nevertheless  covered  by  the  absolution  granted: — and 
when  we  remember  that  confession  is  enjoined  but  once 
a  year,  we  cannot  but  think  that  a  great  many  sins  must 
be  disposed  of  in  this  way.  In  all  these  instances  the 
priest,  acting  as  a  judge,  decides  cases  he  has  never 
heard ;  effectually  remits  sins  of  which  he  knows  nothing. 
3.  In  her  seven  sacraments  the  Church  of  Rome  seems 
to  have  made  effectual  provision  for  accomplishing  the  work 
of  man's  salvation  thoroughly ;  if  sacraments  can  accom- 
plish such  a  work.  In  their  operation,  they  begin  with  the 
very  beginning  of  life,  they  continue  throughout  all  man's 
youth,  maturity,  old  age,  down  to  his  dying  hour,  and  in 
the  form  of  the  "  viaticum  "  (literally,  provision  for  a 
journey)  even  beyond  that  hour.  They  cover  all  the  con- 
ceivable necessities  of  a  sinner's  life, — baptism  regenerates 
at  birth  so  effectually  that  "  there  is  nothing  whatever  to 
retard  the  entrance  into  heaven"  of  the  baptized  person; 
— Confirmation  effectually  strengthens  the  baptized  to 
resist  any  disposition  to  sin  arising  from  "concupiscence," 
the  only  source  of  sin  left  in  the  soul  by  baptism; — the 
Eucharist,  as  a  sacrament,  furnishes  "  heavenly  food  "  for 
the  nourishment  of  the  "  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus," 
whilst  as  "a  propitiatory  sacrifice  "  it  atones  for  the  sins 
of  the  participant; — Penance,  as  a  medicine,  cures  all  the 
soul's  diseases ;  secures  a  full  remission  of  all  mortal  sins 
whether  specifically  confessed,  or  forgotten  by  the  penitent; 
— and  last  of  all,  Extreme  Unction  comes  in  the  dying 


The  Scheme  of  Salvation  through  the  Sacraments.    311 

hour,  and  gathers  up  and  disposes  of  all  "odds  and  ends" 
of  sin  which  may  not  have  been  reached  by  the  other  sac- 
raments. Taking  no  account  now  of  Matrimony  and  Orders, 
these  live  sacraments  seem  so  effectually  to  cover  all  the 
necessities  of  the  sinner's  life,  that  one  would  say  that  a 
good  Romanist,  who  through  life  has  enjoyed  the  benefit 
of  them  all,  and  dies  with  the  "viaticum  "  in  his  mouth, 
must  go  straight  to  heaven.  For  such  a  one  "to  be  absent 
from  the  body,"  must  be  "to  be  present  with  the  Lord." 
(2  Cor.  V.  8.)  Does  the  Eomanist  beheve  that  this  is 
really  so  ? 

The  death  of  the  late  Pope  Pius  IX  presents  us  with 
just  such  a  case  as  we  have  supposed.  Born  within  the 
pale  of  the  Ptoman  Church,  throughout  a  long  life  he  en- 
joyed the  benefit  of  all  the  sacraments — except  Matrimony 
respecting  which  Rome  teaches  that  a  man  is  "  holier  " 
without  it— and  when  his  dying  hour  approached,  as  we 
were  informed  through  the  public  prints,  he  confessed  and 
was  absolved,  received  Extreme  Unction,  and  departed  with 
the  "  viaticum  "  in  his  mouth : — and  yet,  masses  were 
ordered  to  be  said  for  the  repose  of  his  soul,  on  a  certain 
day,  in  all  the  Romish  Churches  throughout  Christendom, 
one  hundred  thousand  at  the  least. 

What  did  all  this  mean  ?  Masses  are  propitiatory  sac- 
rifices offered  to  remove  the  guilt  of  sins,  which  must 
otherwise  be  atoned  for  by  the  soul's  sufferings  in  purga- 
tory. In  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  authorities  in  the 
Church  ordering  these  masses,  the  Sacraments  must  have 
done  their  work  so  imperfectly  that  all  these  masses  were 
required  to  complete  what  they  had  left  undone.  We  can 
put  no  other  construction  upon  the  order.  We  have  some- 
times seen  children  building  a  miniature  tower  with  blocks, 
and  when  with  great  care  they  have  carried  it  up  to  an 
unusual  height,  attempting  to  finish  out  the  structure  with 
some  block  heavier  than  the  rest.  But  no  sooner  is  this 
last,  heavy  block  laid  on,  than  the  whole  structure  topples 
to  the  ground.  Just  what  that  heavy  block  is  to  the 
child's  tower,  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Purgatory  to  this 
scheme  of  salvation  through  the  sacraments. 

In  perfect  contrast  with  this  story  of  the  death  of  Pius 


312  The  Doctrine  of  the  Lords  Supper. 

IX,  is  that  of  Paul,  as  we  learn  it  from  the  word  of  God. 
"  For  I  am  now  ready  to  be  offered,"  writes  he  to  Timo- 
thy, "  and  the  time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand.  I  have 
fought  a  good  fight,  I  have  finished  my  course,  I  have  kept 
the  faith ;  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of 
righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall 
give  me  at  that  day."  (2  Tim.  iv.  6-8.)  And  to  tlie  Phil- 
ippians  he  writes — "  Yet  what  I  shall  choose  I  wot  not ; 
for  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to  de- 
part, and  to  be  with  Christ ;  which  is  far  better."  (Phil.  i. 
22,  23.)  There  is  no  Purgatory  looms  up  before  his  dying 
eye, — he  wants  no  post-mortem  masses  said  for  the  repose 
of  his  soul'. 


SCRIPTURAL  INDEX 


TO  THE 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE   LORDS  SUPPER. 


Genesis. 


III.  21, 
XV.  8-18, 
XXXII.  24, 


Exodus. 


XXIV.  3-8, 


Leviticus. 


II.  13, 
XVII.  11, 


§  21 
§  14 
§  40 


§  16 

§  86 


XVIII.  15-19,  g  110 

XXVI.   17-20,  §  22 

27,  §  20 

28,  §  13,  I  50,  §  63 

29,  3  53 


IX.  49, 
XIV.  22-24, 
"   25. 


Mark. 


Luke. 


I   16 

§  63,  g  50 
?  53 


Psalms. 

XXII.  14-18 

1  53 

"     19,^5,19,^20 

§^0, 

?63,  §72 

L.  5, 

§  16 

"     16, 

§  40 

ex.  4, 

Isaiah. 

§  76 

"     19-23, 
"     30-31, 

^102 
1  64 

I.  11-20, 

§  17 

John. 

XLIV.  14- 

-20, 

Hosea. 

I  69 

III.  14-16, 
VI.  1-34, 
'■     35-47, 
"     48-59, 

?  11 
I  43 
I  44 
§  45 

VI.  6,  7, 

Malachi. 

§  17 

"     60-69, 

"     51-58, 

XX,  22,  23, 

1  46 

§  48 

§  102 

I.  11, 

Matthew. 

?  78 

1.3. 
II.  38, 

Ach. 

§43 
a  103 

Xm.  55. 

,\  10 

"   42-46, 

?  3.1  25 

XVI.  19, 

?  110 

VIII.  14-19. 

1  93 

14 

313 

314 

XIII.  2, 

XIX.  1-7, 

XX.  7 


III.  25, 
XII.  1, 


Acts. 


Romans. 


Scriptural  Index. 


§  81 

I  93 

i  3 


85 


IV,  1, 

V.  7,  8, 

IX.  5, 

X.  4, 

"  16-21, 
"  25-29, 

XI.  17-22, 
"    21, 

"    23-25, 
"    27, 


1  Corinthians. 


I  61    i 
I  2    ! 
?  196    I 
§  52    i 
§  24 
?  30 
I  53 
?  3 
§  5,  §  50    ; 
?  54.  §  56,  g  65    I 
g  55,  ?  57    ! 


V.  18-21. 
VIII.  4, 
XIII.  14 


II.  9, 

III.  1. 


V.  32. 


III.  10, 

IV.  16-1«. 


2  Corinthians. 

Oalatians. 

Ephesians. 
Philippians. 


'i  99 
I  25 
a  25 


§  25 
?  6 


?  104 


2  25 
I  82 


2  Thessalonians. 
III.  6-15, 


III.  2, 

IV.  14, 


I.  6. 


1  Timothy. 


2  Timothy. 


Hebrews. 


II.  14, 

VI.  1,  2, 

VII.  12. 
"      17, 

VIII.  6, 
8-12, 

IX.  11,  12, 
"    25,  28, 

X.  10-14, 
XIII.  10, 

15,  16, 
16. 


James. 


V.  14-18, 
"   16. 


I  33 


106 
112 


112 


S  25 
S94 
2  79 
§  76 
I  23 
§  19 

1  83 

2  83 

1  83 
§  80 

2  82 


I  108 

I  99 


1  Peter. 
n.  4,  5.  h  74, 


Revelation. 


XIV.  3,  4. 


82 


105 


PREACHING  AND  PASTORAL  WORK. 

/   /'<'/.,  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  j./.)  Pages.      Price,  %i.7S- 

Homiletical  and  Pastoral  Lectures. 

Delivered  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral  before  the   Chinch  Homiletical  Society. 
With  a  Preface  by  the  Rt.  Rev.   C.   J.   ELLICOTT,   D.D., 

Editor  of  New  Testament  Commentary  for  English  Readers. 

Contents. 

The  Preparation  of  a  Sermon.  

^  By  the  LORD  BISHOP  of  ROCHESTER. 
The  End  or  Object  of  a  Sermon. 

By  the  Right  Rev.  BISHOP  RYAN,  D.D. 
Homely  Hints  on  Preaching. 

^      By  the  Very  Rev    DEAN  HOWSON,  D.D. 
On  the  Emotions  in  Preaching.  ,^^,, 

By  the  LORD  ARCHBISHOP  of  YORK. 
What  Constitutes  a  Plain  Sermon. 

By  the  LORD  BISHOP  of  CARLISLE. 
The  Preparation  of  Sermons  for  Village  Congregations. 

By  the  Rev.  CANON  HEURTLEY,  D.D. 
The  Preacher's  Gifts.        ^.„„^.^^  ,_  . 

By  the  Rev.  E.  GARBETT,  M.A. 
Study  in  its  Bearing  on  Preaching,  ^  ^  , 

By  the  Rev.  CANNON  BARRY,  D.D.,  D.C.L. 
The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  with  a  vievy  to  the  Preparation  of 
ine  ^^""^g^^^^g-^  BytheVery  Rev.  DEAN  PERO\^NE,  D.D. 
Texts:  their  Interpretation,  Misinterpretation  and  Misapplica- 
tion. By  the  Ven.  ARCHDEACON  PEROWNE,  B.D. 
Prophecy  in  its  Relation  to  Preaching.  c-    r^  t> 

By  the  Very.  Rev.  DEAN  FREMANTLE,  D.D. 
Parish  Work  in  its  Relation  to  the  Cure  of  Souls, 
l-arisn  w  ^^  ^^^  ^^^   CANON  BERNARD,  M.A. 

Pastoral  Visitatio^n.^  preBENDARY  CADMAN.  M.A. 
Pastoral  Dealings  with  Individuals. 

By  tht  Rev.  CANON  HOW,  M.A. 
Cottaee  Lectures. 

By  the  BISHOP  of  OSSORY. 
How  to  Re^ach  Working  M^en.^^^^^^  MACDONALD.  M.A. 

Parochial  Temperance  Work  as  Part  of  the  Cure  of  Souls. 

By  the  Rev.  CANON  ELLISON,  M.A. 
The  Temptations  of  the  Ministry.  ,,^««„ 

By  the  LORD  BISHOP  of  RANGOON. 
The  Responsibilities  of  the  Ministry. 

By  the  Rev.  F.  PIGOU,  D.D. 
The  Results  of  the  Ministry. 

By  the  Rev.  CANON  HOARE,  M.A. 

Juit   Published  by   A.  C.  Aimslrong   ^  Son,   New    Yerk, 
Cspiti  iwt  b7  mill,  poit-p»ld,  on  receipt  of  prio*  by  Pnbllihon. 


Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  M.  Taylor's  New  Work. 

The  Limitations  of  Life 

AND  OTHER  SERMONS. 

With  a  fine  portrait  on  steel  by  Eitchie.    1  Volume,  Crown  8vo,  400  pages.    In  extra 
cloth.    Price,  $1,75.    Full  gilt  sides  and  edges,  $2.50. 

"  In  variety  of  theme,  in  clearness  and  penetration  of  vision,  in 
distinctness  of  aim,  in  intensity  of  purpose,  in  energy  and  well-direct- 
ed effort,  and  above  all,  in  wealth  of  Scriptural  allusion  and  illus- 
tration, this  volume  is  perhaps  without  its  equal  in  the  language." — 
The  Scotsman. 

The  Gongregationalist  says  :  ' '  The  work  is  enriched  by  the  author's 
profound  and  varied  Christian  experience  and  large  knowledge  of 
human  nature." 

Providence  Journal. — "  The  directness,  earnestness,  descriptive 
and  illustrative  power  of  the  preacher,  and  his  rare  gift  for  touching 
the  conscience  and  the  heart,  are  fully  exemplified  in  these  eloquent 
discourses. " 

Indianapolis  Journal. — "  A  volume  of  the  rarest  worth.  A  work 
that  will  not  only  instruct  but  interest  ;  the  treatment  of  subjects  is 
most  skillful  ;  the  style  is  clear,  forceful,  striking  ;  the  utterance, 
strong,  pure  and  vigorous." 

N.  T.  Evangelist. — "  They  have  the  noble  simplicity  and  clearness 
of  the  truth  itself,  and  which,  fixing  the  attention  of  the  reader  from 
the  beginning,  holds  it  to  the  end.  It  is  impossible  to  read  them 
without  the  constant  sense  of  the  personality  of  the  author." 


SYDNEY  SMITH'S  WIT  AND  WISDOM. 

Being  Selecttnns  from  his  Writings,  and  Passages  of  his  Letters  and 
TaUe-talk.    With  a  Steel  Portrait,  a  Memoir,  and  Notes. 

By  E.  A.  DUYCKINCK. 

A  New  Edition,  with  n  Prefatory  Memoir  of  Mr.  DuycTeincle  by  R.H 
Stoddard.   Croivn  8vo.     Cloth,  gilt  top,  $1.75. 


"  The  remarkable  union  of  good  sense  and  rich  humor  in  the 
writings  of  Sydney  Smith  renders  his  works  among  the  most  whole- 
some and  refreshing  of  all  the  modern  British  essayists.  The  geniality 
of  the  man  pervades  the  intelligence  of  the  writer  ;  reviews,  sermons, 
table-talk,  and  lecture  are  permeated  with  the  magnetic  wisdom  of  a 
humane  and  vivacious  character.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that 
a  judicious  selection  from  Sydney  Smith's  writings  should  have  proved 
highly  acceptable.  The  editor  has  done  his  work  with  rare  skill  and 
judgment,  and  the  result  is  one  of  the  most  charming  volumes.  It  is 
just  the  book  to  keep  at  hand  for  recreation  and  suggestive  reading. 
It  abounds  with  passages  of  choice  English,  laden  with  truth  and 
wisdom  ;  it  sparkles  with  wit  and  abounds  in  anecdote  ;  and  is  like  a 
living  presence  in  its  serene,  solid,  pleasant  spirit. 

Copies  sent  by  mail,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price,  by  the  Publishers. 
A.  C.  ARMSTRONG   &   SON,  714  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK. 


Date  Due 

Mr  25  ^ 

^p  28  "^y 

0  2  3  ■'' 

, 

da  5-  *4? 

»I»  20  t 

")>!  '/^^ 

:    ■•■      '. 

|fjbv4~""^ 

f 

1             !            1 

